[OSM-legal-talk] local copyright law on government data and OSM license

[Erwin Olario]

Recently, some edits in the country came to the  attention of the community
and have been found to be derived from government data. Volunteers in the
community, after advising the DWG of the process and action plan, are
undertaking the rollback of affected edits.

In our community, the current practice follows the general recommendation,
that  no (Philippine government) data should be added into OpenStreetMap,
unless explicit permission has been obtained from the originating
agency/office/owners that the data will be added in OSM, under ODbL.

The relevant local law on government data, states Republic Act 8293
<https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1997/06/06/republic-act-no-8293/>,
section 176:
"*Works of the Government. ‑ 176.1. No copyright shall subsist in any work
of the Government of the Philippines. However, prior approval of the
government agency or office wherein the work is created shall be necessary
for exploitation of such work for profit. Such agency or office may, among
other things, impose as a condition the payment of royalties. No prior
approval or conditions shall be required for the use for any purpose of
statutes, rules and regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons,
addresses, and dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of
justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative assemblies and in
meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first par., P.D. No. 49)"*

In the discussions by contributors, there are some who expressed favor a
more liberal interpretation of this section of the law, that government
data is ineligible to copyright, hence no permission is necessary from the
government. And if the end-user has commercial plans for said data, it is
up to them to apply for said permission from the relevant government
agencies.

However, this government permission requirement appears to oppose the OSM
license, wherein OSM data users are only required to attribute, and not
seek any additional permissions. Hence, our promoted practice of seeking
the informed consent of data owners.

While the interpretation of the law is not a question of popularity,
there's no doubt that a more liberal interpretation is desirable for our
community but I'm wondering if somebody from the licensing WG can provide
us specific guidance whether a liberal interpretation of this law is
aligned with the OSM license.

/Erwin


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
» email: erwin@ <erwin at ngnuity.net>*n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
<http://ngnuity.net/> | govvin at gmail.com
» mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
» OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20200716/09e59d54/attachment.htm>