[talk-au] more copyright stuff

[Jim Croft]

This is where the Australian legal process, in it infinite ignorance,
has lost its way.  Protecting creativity is important, but blocking
the description and documentation of creativity is completely baffling
in the depths of its ignorance.

In this case, the creativity is the sequence of programs itself.  If
someone were to broadcast the same sequence of programs, there is no
question - this would be intellectual theft.  Similarly if they were
to republish the creator's wording of the programme and its look and
feel.  But "the news is at seven, followed by the weather"?  You have
to be kidding.

In our domain, if a developer were to construct a new subdivision with
the same configuration, street names and bus stop placement, etc., as
an existing suburb, it would be theft of someone else's creativity.
But describing the existing suburb, is just that - it could even be
thought of as a new creative act.  And using other descriptions
(Gregory's, UBD etc.) for validation is just that - validation.  And
if we describe inconsistency (or even consistency) between the
different points of validation, that is *our* original contribution
creativity.

Just because someone utters a fact does not confer ownership of that fact.

The law, as they say, is a ass..  and it has just demonstrated how big
an ass it is...

jim

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 9:15 PM, Andrew Loughhead
<andrew at incanberra.com.au> wrote:
> Wow, its bizarre. I mean, yes there is creative skill in selecting what
> shows are on when, but the valuable result of that is a sequence of
> shows, being broadcast, which sucks viewers in. The appeal judges seem
> to think that the valuable result is a list of shows. If all Nine
> produced was a carefully constructed list of shows, without actually
> showing them, and the viewing public stood around reading the list and
> saying "ooh, aah", then maybe I could get what the appeal judges decided.
>
> But I think you are right Liz, it is relevant. I believe some osmers
> collect street names by exception, that is, they compare what a
> published map says with what street signs say, tick the confirmed ones,
> and when they see an exception, note it.  I think this makes their list
> a derived work and so is relatively high risk. A demonstrable survey,
> such as a set of geocoded photos of signs, seems clearly not derived,
> and so more bulletproof, to me. But then I've done almost none of that
> kind of survey myself, and consequently have added almost no names, so I
> suppose I don't have much cred on this.
>
> 2c supply now gone...
>
> Andrew.
>
> Liz wrote:
>> http://vogelross.com.au/vrblog/?p=18
>>
>> we may not agree with this decision, but osm'ers should read up on this.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
>



-- 
_________________
Jim Croft
jim.croft at gmail.com