[OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question

[Peteris Krisjanis]

Obligatory IANAL disclaimer.....

Let's be honest, we would like to avoid it as much as possible not
because copyright law is in fact in our side (*checking* facts with
other, commercial sources IS NOT copying and IS NOT covered by
copyright law, period). We want to avoid just because we *think*
(suspect/are afraid of) that law is like Lego - good lawer will
combine different aspects of situation and will get out rulling which
say that such data is actually derative work.

Actually, there is some other, more practical arguments why such
checking isn't healthy thing to do. First of all, it's still just
another source, not field check. Second, it is quite interesting what
happens when you *check* that name of the street you wrote down is
wrong. Can you write down name in Google Street View? I guess it is
copying. Fact copying, but nevertheless. Fact copying en masse =
"substantial extraction". So it is still if you find name wrong, you
theoretically can't copy name from GSV and still have to go outside
and check it yourself. So it's a little self-defeating.

just my really humble thoughts,
Peter.

2009/9/9 Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Tom Hughes<tom at compton.nu> wrote:
>> On 09/09/09 11:55, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>> On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan
>>>> Bennett<openstreetmap at jonno.cix.co.uk>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article,
>>>>> and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another
>>>>> database.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a difference between
>>>> 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and
>>>> 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database?
>>>>
>>>> Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while
>>>> the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)?
>>>
>>> Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits "substantial
>>> extraction".
>>
>> I just realised that I misread your question slightly...
>>
>> The correct answer is of course that on their own there is no difference
>> between the two.
>>
>> The problem arises once you copy a few facts, then I copy a few, then
>> Fred copies a few, then Jim, then...  At some point we have, between us,
>> copied a "substantial extract" at which point the database right kicks in.
>
> The example of a newspaper is a bad example. You cannot copy a text
> writen by somebody else. This is because it is his own creation. If
> you write yourself an article, It is allowed to mention some parts of
> an other article, small extracts are allowed as long as they are not
> "substantial" in which case you leave the right to mention a text.
> It is the same about a photo. You cannot copy a photo or a part of a
> photo because the photo itself is a creation from the guy how took the
> picture. But the street sign on the photo doesn't belong to the
> photograph, neither the photograph cannot say "this street sign is my
> property now because I took a picture of it".
>
> Pieren
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>