Does this license mean copyright? In Germany you cannot protect facts with copyright. Something like "Flat for rent: $size m², $price €, $coordinates, $link" seems more like a fact or an idea.
You can't protect facts with copyright anywhere, AFAIK. The listing consists of more than facts, including a descriptive title, the descriptive text of the listing, and the attached images. These are all protected. At the moment, PadMapper does not copy any of these things. It's been pointed out. Let's not rehash what's already been said ad nauseum in the PadMapper story comments and stick to discussing this submission.
I did not mean to change the subject. This measure just seems ineffective at stopping PadMapper. But it seems like it will stop people from posting their ads elsewhere.
I'm not sure that a title or short description would be copyrightable "a work must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for copyright"
The photographs however would be covered by copyright.
I don't think that copyright for photographs would be covered by the Craigslist claim though:
'Clicking "Continue" confirms that craigslist is the exclusive licensee of this content, with the exclusive right to enforce copyrights against anyone copying, republishing, distributing or preparing derivative works without its consent.'
I have an original photo and publish it as part of a listing ('the content'). The photo is not a derivative work.
> craigslist is the exclusive licensee of this content, with the exclusive right to enforce copyrights against anyone copying, republishing, distributing or preparing derivative works without its consent.'
> I have an original photo and publish it as part of a listing ('the content'). The photo is not a derivative work.
No, but if someone uses that photo (from the listing) to make something else, that something else is a derivative work, and thus covered by the craigslist license.
I suspect that the craigslist wording isn't intended to be restricted to derivative works. That is, I think that they meant to include content as is in addition to derived work from said content.
Yes, becuse if you grant someone exclusive rights then you need to possess those exclusive rights in the first place. If the material is not protectable, then you don't have any rights to grant to others.
I would be surprised if an author really wanted to do such a thing. The authors I know would be livid if a publisher, say, changed the ending. Publishers typically get the right to publish, and that's it. Opening a few books from my library randomly, the authors or their heirs all hold the copyright.
It's a bit more complicated: We don't have copyright as the americans do, it's split in "Urheberrecht" which is the part the the creator owns and cannot license or sell and the "Verwertungsrecht" which is the right to use the work.
Urheberrecht encompasses thing such as the right do defend against modifications that go against the spirit of the work or the author or against defacing it, the right to be named as the creator (though this one can be waived by contract depending on the circumstance) etc. The Urheberrecht can only be transferred by inheritance.
The Verwertungsrechte is anything related to the use of the work, such as selling, buying, (sub)licensing it.
Please keep in mind that this is a gross oversimplification and IANAL. The copyright situation is complicated enough for experts in the field and cannot be explained in a short post I guess :)
