[OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)

[Ed Avis]

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists <ajrlists at ...> writes:

>>>The crux point is what triggers a new copyright date.

>>>"A reprint or new impression without any substantial changes to the text
>>>would not constitute a new copyright work."

>>'Minor changes' is not the same as 'no substantial changes'.  If
>>they have revised the map based on resurveying the area, even if just
>>to add a couple of new roads or a housing development, or to correct
>>mistakes, it's pretty clear that a new copyright period comes into
>>existence.
>
>How so? Can you provide some evidence of why this is the case?

A couple of reasons come to mind.  Firstly, that doing some new surveying
work must mean that the new data has a copyright date starting from now.
The fact that the area had previously been surveyed and this was a repeat
visit surely wouldn't mean it is not copyrightable.  So, then, if you have
a mixture of old and new survey data, the mixture taken as a whole will
not enter the public domain until the copyright on the new additions expires.
It is impractical to buy an OS map and manually excise any additions
made after a certain date - to do that, you would need an old map to refer
to, and if so why not just use the old map?  It would also be hard to
convince a court that you did trace from a map containing both old and new
survey data, but scrupulously restricted yourself (somehow) to only
tracing from the part that is older than 50 years.

Also, I think the guideline cited has led to a false analogy with literary
works.  The intention is to say that a reprint with only a spelling correction,
say, or a re-typesetting of the existing text, or perhaps the addition of
chapter headings, does not create a new copyright.  By this argument you
might say that if the OS published a map in black and white and then later
colorized it by some purely mechanical, no-thought-required process, the new
map would not have a later copyright date.

However, if they have added real new information, such as new roads or even
correcting the position of old ones, this is more analogous to adding new
sentences to an article or even adding a new minor character to a story.
In such cases the changes may be 'minor', but they are certainly *substantial*,
and by a sweat-of-the-brow test would be subject to copyright.

>Well, the question is surely whether the changes made were substantial or
>not. Almost without question the reprints of the 1:25k sheets between major
>republications (and new published dates) of the same map are stated to be
>either minor corrections or minor changes. Mostly this I believe is road
>alignment adjustment and occasionally a new road here and there.

Yes.  But 'minor' is not the same as 'not substantial'.

To my eyes, a 'not substantial' change might be changing typeface or
perhaps correcting an obvious spelling error - but fixing the alignment
of maps is certainly not an easy task, and adding new roads requires work
to survey them.

>But I'm not convinced that the OS has ruled correctly and so it's worth
>further discussion and if necessary appeal.

Well, they do not 'rule' on anything.  They will tell you their opinion,
and in cases where the law is pretty unambiguous (such as the length of
the copyright being 50 years) their opinion will just confirm what the law
says, but is still useful just to check.  However in cases like this the
OS's opinion is likely to be whatever interpretation of the law best
suits their interests.  They are unlikely to change it unless you can
give real evidence that they are wrong (and ultimately, be able to put
a test case through the courts).

>>Would it not be better to get a legal opinion?
>
>If you are offering to pay for one that would be great.

I wonder how much it would cost.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>