[OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms

Ed Avis eda at waniasset.com
Mon Jul 6 13:09:58 BST 2009


Richard Fairhurst <richard at ...> writes:

>>Is anyone seriously suggesting that because factual information is 
>>not covered by copyright, then in countries where no database right 
>>is recognized, map data can be copied with impunity?
>>
>>If so, then it will be okay to start copying data from pre-1990s
>>Ordnance Survey maps?
> 
>No, because UK copyright legislation was amended as of the introduction of
>the EU Database Directive. The contention (and all of this can only ever be
>contention until there's sufficient case law) is that Ordnance Survey data
>was protected by copyright pre-DbD.
> 
>"Prior to the implementation of the Database Directive it might have been
>argued that copyright subsisted in the geospatial data as a table or
>compilation within the meaning of the CDPA.  However, in implementing the
>Directive changes were made to the CDPA which now provides that a literary
>work includes 'a table or compilation other than a database'."

Could you clarify whether this change to the CDPA effectively narrows or
widens the definition of a literary work?  It's not clear which way you mean.

Does this apply retrospectively?  I was referring to OS maps published before
the database directive was introduced, and thus also before this amendment to
copyright law.  (and to printed maps, not the Ordnance Survey database, which
is rather harder to find at car boot sales)

>It is worth noting, of course, that the Ordnance Survey believes fervently
>that every single right possible subsists in their data:

Yes it's fun isn't it?  I think it is a bit dishonest to claim all sorts of
rights which don't really exist.  But still, that is the lawyer's job: claim
everything you can, the other side claims the opposite, and the courts will
reach some sensible position in the middle.

>If you're expressly talking about pre-1990s OS _maps_ there is also the
>question of whether tracing is copying (see my most recent blog post).

This one: <http://www.opengeodata.org/?p=171>

You make a good point that the current share-alike conditions may be
discouraging commercial maps using OSM data, because the final map would have
to be distributed under CC-BY-SA too.  Then again, I thought this was a
deliberate feature (the 'settled will of the OSM community' as somebody wrote)
to make sure that if a printed atlas were produced from OSM data it would have
to be freely copyable.  I wonder what the contributors really want?

>>If it is the settled view of the OSM project, based on legal 
>>advice, that copyright plus CC-BY-SA does not protect the 
>>Openstreetmap geodata from being copied and incorporated 
>>into other works, can an official statement be made to this 
>>effect?

>OSM appears to want sharealike, so why would it benefit OSM to issue such a
>statement?

I think it's only honest to be clear where you stand.  I don't think the project
should claim legal rights that don't really exist, even if the Ordnance Survey
do that.

It's not very consistent to on the one hand say that the data is CC-BY-SA
licensed and tell people they must follow the terms, while on the other hand
saying on the mailing lists that the data is 'basically unlicensed right now'
and that CC-BY-SA must be replaced because it's not enforceable.
 
>http://edina.ac.uk/projects/grade/gradeDigitalRightsIssues.pdf

Thanks, reading this.

>>It's a simple collection of facts - street names and geometries - arranged in
>>an uncreative fashion, and Rural vs Feist tells us that this doesn't merit
>>>copyright. Therefore CC-BY-SA will not protect it.
>
>>Interesting.  Do you mean only the map, or the underlying data too?
>
>The data.

This sounds like good news.  So street names and other factual information about
US cities can simply be copied from existing maps, provided they were published
before Congress introduced the database right in that country?

>>But you might be right, perhaps in the USA map data
>>can be freely copied.  In which case the OSM project has already
>>achieved its aim (of free map data) kind of by default, and all that
>>remains is to view some areas in Google Maps and start copying in the
>>streets and other features.
> 
>No, Google Maps Ts & Cs contractually forbid you from doing that.

Hmm, whether these terms and conditions really exist is another topic and there
is too much amateur lawyering already... so I'll just say copy from printed
atlases instead.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>





More information about the legal-talk mailing list