[talk-au] Copyright in Australia (Was: Tagging questions)

[80n]

I don't really understand why you guys are wanting so much to get a free
ride.

The really important thing about OSM is to create a map that we can be sure
does not infringe anyone else's copyright.  It really doesn't matter how
long that takes.

In my mind, if there's the slightest doubt about any particular source then
it should discounted out of hand.   If people have to visit every single
street on the planet, then so be it - that's the fun part of the project
anyway.

80n

On Feb 11, 2008 9:29 PM, Ian Sergeant <isergean at hih.com.au> wrote:

> Matt White <mattwhite at iinet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I reckon the multi source approach should also be
> > valid for street name sourcing - that way you aren't relying on a single
> > companies *substantial effort* required
>
> be careful here.  if copyright subsists, because of substantial effort,
> then copyright subsists.  you can't argue that copyright doesn't subsist
> for a work used in one way, but does for a work used in another.
>
> once copyright is shown to subsist, it only then matters whether you are
> using within the bounds of what is permitted for a copyrighted work.
>
> it is likely copyright subsists in a street directory list of street
> names.
> the only question then is what amounts to permitted use under the
> copyright
> provisions.
>
> Is looking up a street directory by multiple people to confirm an address
> before travelling there fair use?  It is easy to argue in favour of this.
> The street directory was intended for this purpose.
>
> Is looking up a street directory to validate a competing street directory,
> rather than paying for or otherwise putting effort into verifying the
> source?  I wouldn't like to be in court arguing that case..
>
> Also - don't forget there are contractual terms of use in google maps, etc
> which prohibit this.  This really only leaves a couple of sources of this
> street name data.
>
> > (in Australia, and apparently only Australia, we have to wear the
> > consequences of the DtMS v Telstra judgement which in essence says that
> > factual items can be copyrighted in a substantial effort was required to
> > collate and present them).
>
> The court in Desktop Marketing v Telstra, certainly believed they were
> disregarding US precedent, and following UK precedent.  The issue will
> probably never be argued in a UK court, because they have strong
> protections in the form of a database right legislation, and will likely
> never have to rely on copyright to protect factual information.
>
> I would strongly suggest not referring to a copyrighted work when working
> on OSM.
>
> Ian.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20080212/f058f6a5/attachment.html>