![]() However, if the data is not protected under copyright, there is nothing stopping me from doing all the things to the data that I can, and so I can just ignore the contract you would like me to agree to. So if the data is protected under copyright, you can limit my copying and, for example, require me to agree to a contract in order that I may be allowed to copy it (and thus use it). what I can do with that data, is copyright. The only reason that there's a limit to what I am allowed to do with that data, vs. ![]() In fact, in order to display the data in my browser, multiple copies have already ben made. If the data is there, I can just take and copy it. The problem is before the contract even gets a chance to be applicable. In Europe there are only contracts, US licenses are interpreted as contracts (and if they don't satisfy the local requirements to form a contract they are void). License is a US legal concept that doesn't exist in Europe. > Reviewing the OSM Legal FAQ, it appears that they are very much based on copyright and licensing. The Appeal court and CJEU basically dismissed copyright/counterfeit claims in the first precedent few months ago, saying it's a contractual matter (short version, there's some nuances to it). They have a variety of grounds inside and outside of copyright. They are full fledged contracts with many pages, many clauses, that put obligation on both parties. (One angle is to try to void the contract, claiming that the data/database can't be subject to copyright and the contract has no ground).Ĭontracts like the GPL and Openstreetmap are not (only) about copyright. I think you might do the mistake of assuming that it's all about copyright and it might be wrong. > due to the fact that it is protected by copyright.Ĭareful here. (In case I'm not clear, that means the company automatically read and agreed with the contract when using the data). If the website/data is clearly associated with a contract (a license is a contract), it is in that case:Īs a consumer, maybe it doesn't matter because there are many exceptions and loopholes for consumers (similarly to how EULA are void for a variety of reasons).Īs a company however, company don't get consumer exceptions and are not given the benefits of the doubt, if a company decides to source data/software from somewhere, the company must have done the groundwork to ensure it can use the data and under what conditions. and are tax-exempt under the purpose of public education ("Förderung der Volksbildung") since that one is the easiest to get away with if you do any sort of public events that can be considered education every once in a while (like conferences or talks or such). Most local chapters are constituted as e.V. I'm familiar with this topic because I'm volunteering in the Chaos Computer Club. There has been some support for the idea of adding free software as a charitable cause to this list, but nothing has come out of it as of yet. ![]() For instance, sports clubs are explicitly covered, as are consumer protection watchdogs.įor any associations doing charitable work in the IT context, the issue is that none of these bullet points in the legal text explicitly cover such activities. Most of these items are engineered to cover existing e.V. can act in the public interest ("Gemeinnützigkeit") and thus become tax-exempt. The law lists a finite amount of ways in which an e.V. > tax-exempt if you put the right weasel words into the statute The core of the problem is the part that I sort of glossed over when I said: ![]() Whichever is the case, relocating your whole legal entity to the EU because of an issue like this might be a rather extreme reaction, and from the report it appears the decision here was made on the basis of many small factors and not just the issue of database rights. If it's the latter then it's probably the other way around. Is OSM generating new data in a creative process or investing significant effort in collecting data that existing sources? If it's the former then copyright probably does apply but database rights probably don't according to CJEU case law. I wonder whether database rights would actually hold up for something like OpenStreetMap anyway. But that doesn't help you if whoever is scraping your site is based somewhere else, which includes most of the world. They might be useful for something like stopping someone who is in a jurisdiction where they apply from scraping your site to download a database you spent significant money collecting. They look a lot more powerful at first glance than they have proved to be when tested in court, and they only last 15 years. Yes, database rights in the EU/UK sense are an oddity in IP law. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |