[Gfoss] [geo-discuss] copyright not applicable to geodata?

Piergiorgio_Cipriano · April 3, 2007, 1:33pm

(scusate cross-posting)

Vi giro un post inviato a geo-discuss@lists.okfn.org.
Trovate due link a elenchi di normative in materia di copyright e IP.
Tanto per dire che la questione è abbastanza complicata (e, soprattutto, materia di avvocati ed esperti di IP, più che di geodata geeks).

pg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Piergiorgio Cipriano <pg.cipriano@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 3, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Fwd: [geo-discuss] copyright not applicable to geodata?
To: geo-discuss@lists.okfn.org

Second trial (my message “Re: [geo-discuss] copyright not applicable to geodata?” has been rejected by the list moderator: “… too big for the mailing list (the list limit is
40kb)”.

All,
a part from DB european directive (96/9/EC) we’d better add some other EU directives + dozen WIPO documents + hundreds National laws (EU 25 members) on copyright and related rights.
You can download a couple of docs here, I do hope they can be useful:

List of International and EU normatives on copyright and IP (kindly provided to CEN/TC287 WG5 by dr. M.Travostino, an italian lawyer and IP expert, also working on geodata issues - reading in cc)
2.
National laws ist (from WIPO database)

Jo:

Local and regional authorities in Italy and in New Zealand among others, have been looking into whether it is appropriate to use a Creative Commons license for geodata.

Are you really sure about that?
I do know local and regional authorities in Italy quite well: just few examples are seriously doing this (say 3 or 4 out of 20 Regions + 103 Provinces + 8000 Municipalities).
So, please, do not generalize: unfortunately it’s not a national-wide phenomenon.

Direct link to docs:

pg

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Piergiorgio Cipriano < pg.cipriano@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 2, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [geo-discuss] copyright not applicable to geodata?
To: Rufus Pollock < rufus.pollock@okfn.org>, geo-discuss@lists.okfn.org
Cc: massimo.travostino@pecoraro-travostino.it

[…]

On 4/2/07, Rufus Pollock <rufus.pollock@okfn.org> wrote:

Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Rufus Pollock wrote:

Thus the simple message to the openstreetmap and other list should be:
stop worrying and keep licensing.

Mmm, but I’m not convinced there’s nothing for us to worry about.

OSM is licensed as CC-BY-SA 2.0, which expressly defines the “Work” as
“the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this
License” (1e). Now it looks like OSM, and other geodata, may not be
copyrightable - it’s database-rightable (sorry, that’s not a word). At
this point the applicability of the licence starts to look a little
shaky, because we aren’t using CC-Netherlands/Belgium.

In the EU at least there is both copyright and the sui-generis right
though with some restrictions on when you can use the copyright (old
common-law jurisdictions and many others allowed copyright in simple
data no matter how ‘unoriginal’). Specifically here is the quote from
Cornish and Llewelyn, Intellectual Property 5th Edition (one of the
standard treatises) paras 19-37 and following:

(i) Copyright in the Compilation. … First, it [the DB directive]
defines what is meant by a “database”: “a collection of independent
works, data or other materials arranged ina systematic or methodical
way and individually accessible by electronic or other means.” [DB Dir
Art 3] Then it allows copyright in a database (as distinct from its
contents), but only on the basis of authorship involving involving
personal intellectual creativity. This is a new limitation, so far as
common law countries are concerned, and one which must presage a raising
of the standard or originality throughout British Copyright law.
Intellectual judgment which is in some sense the author’s own must go
either into choosing contents or into the method of arrangement. The
selective dictionary will doubtless be a clearer case than the
classificatory telephone directory but each may have some hope; the
merely comprehensive will be precluded – that is the silliness of the
whole construct.

…

(ii) Database right. In addition there is a separate sui generis right
given to the maker of a database (the investing initiator) against
extraction or reutilisation of the database. Four essential points may
be highlighted:

(1) The right applies to databases whether or not their arrangement
justifies copyright and whatever position may be regarding copyright in
individual items in its contents.

…

I do agree with your point on the SPARC-OpenData list about the “social
contract”, but unfortunately if someone exploits it despite that, the
result is either big fat legal fees or an unenforced licence.

I agree, and the social contract point was a secondary one.

We (OSM) are asking lawyers about this.

That is great to hear and let me know what the result is. Even if the
current CC license is insufficient it should only be a small mod to make
it sufficient. On this point, I don’t know whether you recall but two
years after the original open geodata forum Giles Lane instigated work
on modifying the CC licenses specicifically for use with geodata:

http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/geo-discuss/2005-April/000012.html

The effort rather ran out of steam due to a perceived lack of immediate
need for it. Details, plus link to last version of the license are on:
http://www.okfn.org/geo/access.html#license .

~rufus

geo-discuss mailing list
geo-discuss@lists.okfn.org
http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/geo-discuss

–
Piergiorgio Cipriano
pg.cipriano@gmail.com