[OAM-talk] a dramatically simplified technical proposal

[Richard Fairhurst]

Steven M. Ottens wrote:

> If the source data is properly licensed, the derived works are also
> properly licensed. For instance CC-SA will allow derived works to be
> used and shared under 'under the same, similar or a compatible
> license.' Which also means you can use it with OSM and their ODbL
> (http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/). I don't think you can
> license the imagery, without licensing its derivatives in one way or
> the other.

As Chris says, the case law (that we know of) says that tracing is not  
derivative, so this doesn't arise.

See Bauman v Fussell, Antiquesportfolio v Fitch, and Ets-Hokin v Skyy  
Spirits. (I've blogged at tedious length about this.) A good summary  
from Christina Michalos's 'The Law of Photography and Digital Images':

"It is submitted that for a non-original photograph of a mundane 3-D  
object taken 'straight-on' which is intended to be an accurate copy of  
that object, any copyright that subsists is a 'thin' copyright which  
is only infringed by actual reproduction of that image...

"It is the work labour and skill in creating that image which is  
protected... The 'thin' copyright conferred on photographs intended to  
reproduce 3-D objects should protect only the work labour and skill  
and not the photograph's subject."


On the other matter, FWIW I don't believe there is a consensus that  
ODbL is a "similar or compatible license" to CC-BY-SA, sadly. The  
decision on this would be in CC's court, but they are very much of the  
opinion (via Science Commons) that data should only be licensed with a  
public domain waiver (plus norms), not a sharealike condition. See OSM  
legal-talk passim.

cheers
Richard