[OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

[Michael Collinson]

On 30/10/2012 13:07, Jonathan Harley wrote:
>
> (After a hiatus - I've been discussing this off-list with Anthony and 
> others.)
>
> On 22/10/12 23:13, Anthony wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
>> <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley <jon at spiffymap.net>:
>>>> Anyway, the ODbL is explicit that an image is an example of a 
>>>> produced work,
>>>> so for anyone creating them, their responsibility is clear: include 
>>>> the
>>>> notice required for produced works.
>>>>
>>>> It's also explicit that a produced work is not a derivative 
>>>> database (4.5b),
>>>> so it follows that a map image does not have to be licensed using 
>>>> ODbL. So,
>>>> the hypothetical person wishing to publish on a stock art website 
>>>> only has
>>>> to decide whether they wish to impose ODbL or some other 
>>>> restriction on
>>>> their work, or not. Not imposing any restrictions on an image is 
>>>> clearly
>>>> allowed. (In which case a database derived from the image would not 
>>>> be bound
>>>> by ODbL.)
>>>
>>> Then this is clearly a loophole. You could render (with a dedicated
>>> style) the whole world in a very high zoom level (even as raster, if
>>> you're in doubt whether vectors might fall under ODbL), apply image
>>> recognition on it (would be simple if you used one rendered layer per
>>> feature) and reassemble the whole database. I am simplifying this
>>> process, but it is clearly possible.
>> This (both Jonathan's comment and your response) confuses copyright
>> law.  Yes, you don't have to release a Produced Work under ODbL.  But
>> if you don't have a license on the Produced Work, then all rights are
>> reserved.
>>
>
> Only *if* copyright is there at all. What is in question is whether a 
> substantial amount of material that is OSM's copyright is present in a 
> map I make using OSM's data. If it isn't, then it follows that OSM 
> cannot reserve any rights in my work, explicitly or otherwise.

No loop hole. Unless I am missing something earlier in the thread, this 
is covering very old ground.  This is the LWG understanding:  The buzz 
phrase is "layered copyright".  Using an open licensed photo of a 
MacDonald's restaurant does not give one the right to use MacDonald's 
logo. In our world, the classic case is the SVG file. The publisher can 
publish it as a Produced Work if the intent is to show a pretty picture 
but if someone then comes along and tries to extract and re-constitute 
OSM data from it, then OSM copyright applies to them.

Mike

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline