14

There are quite some datasets out there that simply doesn't contain an explicit license (e.g. CC-BY). At best a one-line statement is given that the data is "open data".

Can I simply state that when the data is available without an explicit license it is open for everybody?

Improve this question
6
  • 1
    I suppose that in practice, it depends what you're going to use the data for. – gerrit Oct 8 '13 at 9:52
  • Gerrit, what if the purpose is modify and reshare? – Egon Willighagen Oct 8 '13 at 10:29
  • What jurisdiction are you concerned about? Somewhere in the the U.S.? – Dogweather Oct 13 '13 at 6:36
  • @Dogweather does a jurisdiction matter? Is there an example of someone using open data legally in country a and illegal in country b? – Andra Oct 13 '13 at 19:50
  • 1
    @Andra, jurisdiction is everything. The laws are different everywhere. – Dogweather Oct 15 '13 at 1:09
11

The content of a database is generally covered under copyright law, so broadly speaking… no. You cannot assume that copying and re-use is implicitly allowed by default.

Almost all major countries follow the Berne Convention. In the US (for example), almost everything published after April 1989 is considered "copyrighted" by default and protected whether it has a copyright notice or not. You should assume that any works that are not explicitly licensed for reuse may not be copied unless you know otherwise.

"Knowing otherwise" is where it gets tricky. There is a lot of data that simply is not copyrightable. But you have to understand copyright law and the laws governing reuse if you are going to act without explicit license. There are Fair Use provisions which allow a certain amount of re-use of original works. Copyright law doesn't generally protect mere listings of things (like ingredients, formulas, telephone listings, etc)… but copyright protection may extend to substantial literary expression within those listings. Some countries recognize separate property rights for databases which are somewhat distinct from copyright. Also, only original works of authorship are protected by copyright. Compilations of others' work may not.

If you don't see an explicit license, you should assume copyright by default — and then proceed cautiously to determine whether the work itself is actually copyrightable or if your application is covered under Fair Use.

Improve this answer
4
  • Since caching is technically a form of copying we aren't even allowed to read a website, blog or online dataset if no license allowing reuse is set, correct? – Andra Oct 8 '13 at 14:02
  • 1
    @Andra In the US, the DMCA makes allowances for certain types of ephemeral copying like caching, time delayed use, backups, etc. So feel free to read those blogs in safety. – Robert Cartaino Oct 8 '13 at 14:13
  • "The content of a database is generally covered under copyright law, so broadly speaking… no. You cannot assume that copying and re-use is implicitly allowed by default." I disagree; this is an overbroad statement. Facts are not copyrightable. Some databases which have the minimum required amount of creative expression will qualify for copyright protection as a compilation. But even then, the underlying information it contains may not be subject to copyright. – Dogweather Oct 13 '13 at 6:43
  • @Dogweather Please read the entire post. That is exactly what I said. And if there is no licensing notice, no, you absolutely cannot ASSUME you are free to use it. – Robert Cartaino Oct 14 '13 at 0:08
3

It depends. In the US, facts are not eligible for copyright, but other countries do have 'database rights'.

Improve this answer
1
  • 3
    Facts are not eligible, but a collection of facts might be. See opendata.stackexchange.com/q/574/263 . (and you're right about the other countries ... it gets messy w/ crown copyright, database rights, etc.) – Joe Oct 8 '13 at 12:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.