[talk-au] Servos

Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxious at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 02:03:54 GMT 2010

On 2/9/10, David Murn <davey at incanberra.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 10:48 +1000, John Smith wrote:
> > On 9 February 2010 10:37, David Murn <davey at incanberra.com.au> wrote:
> > > Thats probably a good thing.  'skills' also includes knowing how the OSM
> > > licence works, and clicking on the 'terms of use' link on the page you
> > > linked...
> >
> > Except copyright law in Australia since the IceTV ruling is unlikely
> > to cover simple databases of fact.
> Oh, thanks for that.  I didnt realise that OSM had moved to Australia,
> and was now governed by Australian law.
Well, the original database being reproduced is Australian. There's a
broader issue of "copyright havens" here where some countries have
weaker or no interlectual property protection - see para 20 of
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/hague/Ginsburg2000.pdf . That paper
recommends moving to a model where the server hosting the database on
the Internet is the jurisdiction where infringement would be
established but I presume that is not an internationally recognised
position yet.

> If there were any court rulings that changed our right to access/use
> other peoples content, theres a lot better things to import than
> woolworths locations, say for example copyrighted street centrelines.

I would assume most geo-databases that you can access (or purchase
access to) are additionally protected by contract law. There are
additional clauses in the Terms of Use

> Also what is this 'IceTV ruling'?  I provide you with an opinion and
> details of why its so, you just say 'since XYZ ruling'.

The ruling is: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/14.html
And an analysis of the copyright issues:
The conclusion was "there must be some 'creative spark' or exercise of
'skill and judgment' before a work is sufficiently 'original' for the
subsistence of copyright.".
> What if theyve put an easter-egg into that 'database of fact'?  Suddenly
> they can prove you took their entire dataset.
Or they can just refer to this publically accessable email discussion.
> Another concern I have, is that if the law works one way, whats to stop
> someone deriving a list of info from OSM, then adding it to their
> project (google map-maker for example), then claiming that its okay
> because "IceTV" says so.
Yes. That would be an argument why we need a new licencing arrangement
like ODbL where there's a contract protecting reproduction as well as
database rights/copyright where they exist.

More information about the Talk-au mailing list