[OSM-legal-talk] When should ODbL apply to geocoding

[Stephan Knauss]

Frederik Ramm writes:

>> geocoding results seem like
>> a produced work to me. I believe that I am decorating other open data
>> with the results of a geocoder that contains sufficient art to make it
>> not derived, but produced.
>
> Our usual definition of produced work doesn't look at how much art there
> is, but whether something is a database.

If a printed map is a database (refer to Landgericht München I, 21 O  
14294/00) and we treat it as a produced work, why can't another database  
not be a produced work as well? For example a database used for routing or  
a database used for (reverse)geocoding.

ODBL defines it as:
“Produced Work” – a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or  
sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the  
Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative  
Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database.

It gives examples of works, but IMHO does not limit it to such.
So if you produce a database by using the whole or a substantial part of  
the contents then you have a produced work.

If you copy extensive listings of job offers from a newspaper you did not  
violate database rights (München 6 U 2812/00). If you copy the music charts  
listing, you did (München 29 U 4008/02).

The nuances of when something is a database and when not is much different  
in a legal sense than what the typical technician would assume.

I'm out from this legal discussion. And I recommend all not having any  
degree of legals and experience with database right also not to participate  
in this discussion any more. It's all opinions. But for legal discussions  
opinions don't count much (maybe unless you are the judge).


Stephan