<html>
<body>
At 09:16 PM 1/09/2006, Richard Fairhurst wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Nick W wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">IANAL again but quite possibly
many people first learnt things from<br>
copyrighted maps. Surely there must be some common sense here. If
someone<br>
learnt something from a copyrighted map when they were a child, surely
that<br>
would be acceptable? There must be limits. Even if someone else told you
a<br>
name, *they* may have learnt it from a copyrighted map.<br><br>
If that's the case we may as well forget about adding any names to the
map<br>
unless we have documentary evidence of it. Even if we have known the name
all<br>
our lives. I'd sincerely hope common sense would prevail
here.</blockquote><br>
IM(non-legal)O such use is part of the implied contract when you buy
a <br>
map, and therefore ok.<br><br>
In other words, "getting to know an area better" is one of the
reasons <br>
you buy a map, and OS/whoever should expect this use when they sell
it <br>
to you.</blockquote><br>
I belong firmly to the camp that says you can't copyright data and that
names originally legitimately learnt from maps somehow or other can also
quite legitimately be added to OSM even to the point of directly looking
up occassional data while contributing to OSM. [Don't worry, I
won't do that as long as this debate continues! ] The danger though
is that existence of just one proven lifted piece of information, such as
an Easter Egg street name, can lead to a reasonable assumption that there
has been wholesale copying from a copyrighted map and that it is enough
to violate that copyright - I think that is everyone's real worry and
that other debates are a red herring. While the assumption may not
be true, legal costs could be lethal to OSM. The solution is
to fatally weaken a potential litigant's case by having enough
chicken tracks for a potential litigant to establish *<b>at their own
cost and time</b>* that such wholesale lifting has not occurred. And that
if a particular contributor has made a violation, OSM has an established
mechanism for surgical removal, a la You Tube, without bring the whole
site down. <br><br>
My recommendations (some of this is in place already): <br><br>
a) encourage a high degree of tagging data with a source;<br><br>
b) contributed data must always be attributable to a person or at least
to an account so that (potentially) tainted data can be removed;
<br><br>
c) there should be a clear statement on the OSM site that OSM does not
condone breaching copyright with basic guidelines to contributors and a
"what to do" for anyone who does think their copyright is
violated;<br><br>
d) contributors should be encouraged to personally make and keep forever
a reasonably systematic record / diary of how data was
collected.<br><br>
<br>
And if anyone wants to read on, I make the same case in more detail
below!<br><br>
Mike<br>
Oz<br><br>
With the usual IANAL caveat, it would be ridiculous to charge breach of
copyright for incorporating a few names that *may* have come second-hand
from a copyrighted map perhaps from another person *IF* that is what
happened. In the case of a Wiki article, the person who wrote the
it was using the original data well within the bounds of legality, i.e.
using a published map as the reference tool it was intended for. In
the case of the OSM contributor themselves, I for example have no idea of
how I originally learnt the name of the street I live on, I've certainly
never bothered to look at the street sign. May be I got it from the
Sydney street gazeteer within normal usage, may be I got it somewhere
else, who cares. [Although, I shall now rush out and take a photo
to cover OSM!]<br><br>
BUT<br><br>
I'm sure the real problem lies in that if *one* name on a map can be
proved to come from a particular copyrighted work (e.g. an Easter Egg),
then there can be reasonable assumption that there has been wholesale
lifting of names from the same source. Whether or not that is true, there
is then an expense in fighting that claim that could be a death knell for
such as OSM.<br><br>
The solution therefore is to be able to allow the litigant to establish
*at their own cost and time* that such wholesale lifting has not
occurred:<br><br>
a) as other contributors have suggested, systematically document sources
of information with tags such as "landsat" or references to
photos of street names. This does not have to be 100%, but enough
to demonstrate that independant data collection in a given area has
actually occurred. The mere existance of GPS tracks in the OSM
database already provides an excellent demonstration so explicit tagging
is not required. Let the potential litigant do the work of
comparison.<br><br>
b) Contributed information should be attributed to a particular
individual or account, whether anonymous or not. This already
happens. If the person cannot or does not wish to be contacted, the
worst case is limited to removing that person's contributions and the
case dissappears. Some legal statement to that effect should added
to the OSM site.<br><br>
c) OSM contributors should be encourage to take and keep notes on how
they obtained their data AND keep them for many years. I have a
little hardback notebook in which I record date, and using a series of
symbols, the route I took and observations I made. My handwriting
is terrible and I don't care how legible they are to other people, but I
do have a record. I'd be very happy for a legal representative to come to
my house and review them at their own expense.</body>
</html>