[Osmf-talk] OSM and open data global aerial/sat images

[Simon Poole]

Just for the record Germany (and a couple of other countries) has
specific protection for non-(or at least less) creative photography.

In the end it just depends, and while armchair lawyering may be fun, in
the end the simple solution is to simply ask the owner/creator of the
imagery in question.

Simon


Am 16.01.2018 um 12:35 schrieb Dan S:
> 2018-01-16 10:13 GMT+00:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:
>>
>> 2018-01-16 10:35 GMT+01:00 Dan S <danstowell+osm at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> I believe "creativity" is part of the criteria for copyright in the
>>> USA, but not in the EU (certainly not here in the UK), and so
>>> creativity is not an issue - there is at least one jurisdiction
>>> significant for OSM in which you don't need to assert any "creativity"
>>> in your aerials
>>
>>
>> for reference:
>> https://www.gov.uk/copyright
>>
>> According to this link,
>>
>> You automatically get copyright protection when you create:
>>
>> original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work, including
>> illustration and photography
>> original non-literary written work, such as software, web content and
>> databases
>> sound and music recordings
>> film and television recordings
>> broadcasts
>> the layout of published editions of written, dramatic and musical works
>>
>>
>> I don't see aerial imagery falling into any of these (but as this is just a
>> summary, it might be included nonetheless), as it is neither
>>
>> - an original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work
>>
>> - a written work or any of the following.
>>
>> There is "photography" in the first point, but referring to "artistic work".
>> Unlike classical cartography, where there are lots of decisions involved to
>> create the map, in aerial imagery there is almost none, so the only probable
>> reason why these could be copyright protected is by definition (likely, to
>> protect the investment of people making these products).
> Thanks Martin - it seems my belief may have been wrong - at least, I
> didn't realise it might be ambiguous whether UK copyright might apply
> to aerial imagery. I agree with Jaak that it seems a provider could
> make many arguments in court that they're covered as artistic works.
> Anyway, I'm sure the LWG and others have discussed these things
> extensively, so I won't bang on. But thanks for your clarification -
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20180116/c105d8c1/attachment.sig>