[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[Jukka Rahkonen]

80n <80n80n at ...> writes:


> Jukka Rahkonen wrote:

>> I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are
>> effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways
>> tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not 
>> copyrightable.

> Is this a correct understanding of what a fact is, from a legal point
> of view? A telephone number is a fact in the sense that it is it's own
> identity.  A copy will be identical.  And this seems to be the basis 
> of much US case law in this area.  On the other hand GPS tracks are 
> made up of information, but they are samples of a paths and no two 
> sets of GPS tracks will ever be identical.  The stuff of GPS tracks 
> is very different from the stuff of telephone numbers.Before using 
> the "GPS tracks are facts" meme we really should have a better 
> understanding of what constitutes a fact, in legal terms. 

I can't say how facts look like from the legal point of view, or if such 
exist at all. In real life many of us consider also unrepeatable 
approximations as facts, like how much we weight. Completely defined  
facts like telephone numbers are rare exceptions. Most measurements are 
more or less inaccurate. See for example 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

GPS track logs recorded with recreational GPS units are approximations of the
route, accurate to something like +/- 10 meters. I wouldn't say 
that due to this inaccuracy track logs are creative work. However, I 
wouldn't be surprised if they still are from the legal point of view.