[OSM-legal-talk] Using copyrighted data to locate objects in bing (and trace over bing)

Bjoern Hassler bjohas+mw at gmail.com
Thu Aug 25 18:42:49 UTC 2016


Hi Yves,

Depends what you mean by "source". In scenario (2), the copyrighted map
tells me where to look, but I use bing imagery to trace over the object
(say the runway). The copyrighted map is used, but only provides
information in a conceptual sense, but is not a source of (numerical) data:
The OSM data is generated by tracing over bing. So is the use of the
conceptual information from the map permissible or not?

I would think that it's not a copyright issue: what is the work that is
being copied? The lat/lon from POIs in the copyrighted map is not copied.
However, it may be an issue with sui generis or other rights. Perhaps the
issue is with "systematically" (as you suggest?). Clearly systematic
copying of data would be prohibited by sui generis rights. However, I'd
argue that scenario (2) is not copying of data: The data is used for
discovery, but bing imagery provides the data entered into OSM.

Many thanks for the message!
Bjoern

On 25 August 2016 at 19:09, Yves <yvecai at gmail.com> wrote:

> In other words, you would systematically use a copyrighted map as a source
> to enter data in OSM?
> Yves
>
> Le 25 août 2016 19:49:05 GMT+02:00, Bjoern Hassler <bjohas+mw at gmail.com>
> a écrit :
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Is it permissible to use (copyrighted) maps to discover features on Bing
>> (and trace those into OSM)?
>>
>> Suppose I have a list of GPS points of airports (one per airport),
>> derived from publicly available paper (copyrighted) maps. Suppose there is
>> no issue with sui generis rights in that list, but that there was no
>> special permission to create that list (and thus the list is not rights
>> cleared as such, but only used personally). I would think that:
>>
>> (1) I am not permitted to transfer that data straight to OSM, because I
>> would effectively be tracing over those maps, which constitutes
>> digitisation, and which is very likely not permitted. Do you agree?
>>
>> (2) However, I am allowed to use that list to systematically find
>> airports on bing. I.e. use an editor to visit those GPS coordinates, and
>> then see whether a runway is present in bing. If the runway is there (and
>> not in OSM already), I then manually trace over bing to add the runway; if
>> nothing is there, I do nothing.
>>
>> I assume that (2) does not violate copyright, because I am only using the
>> copyrighted information to find possible locations in bing, and then trace
>> over bing. Do you agree?
>>
>> Two concerns:
>>
>> (A) While it does not violate copyright, maybe it violate other rights
>> (sui generis rights associated with the original maps) or other terms of
>> use (for the original map)?
>>
>> (B) My second concern is that (1) could be seen as a "limiting" case of
>> (2): Suppose I don't trace over the runway, but I just enter a POI for
>> airport. Suppose that often those POIs are close to the GPS point in the
>> original map? Surely, that is effectively case (1), and would not be
>> permitted? So (2) hinges on the fact that you see the object on bing, and
>> then trace over it in bing.
>>
>> (3) A final consideration: In (2), can I enter other public data into OSM
>> (such as the name of the airport) that I derived from the map? The name as
>> such is not copyrighted, but maybe there is a sui generis right in the
>> collection of the names?
>>
>> Thanks for any light that you can shed on this! (Or any websites /
>> documents with further information.)
>>
>> All the best,
>> Bjoern
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>>
> --
> Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20160825/9bf036b4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list