[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)

[Jez Nicholson]

..and therein lies the issue. In the olden days it was obvious if you had
copied someone else's data as you'd copied a large section of map. They
would prove this via 'trap streets'. But in the digital age you can
assemble a larger dataset from multiple tiny ones, so Ordnance Survey have
to assert that copying *any* single point is breaking copyright.

In practice, this stifles the creation of Open Data and business
transactions. If I want to sell you a field and I draw round it on a map to
show you where it is, then I'm not attempting to steal the whole map
contents and profit from that, i'm just trying to get on with my
business....using a resource bought and paid for with my hard earned tax
money.... It would seem ridiculous for me to have to set up an account and
licence the underlying section of map to sell a single field.... But what
if i'm selling 15,000 fields?? etc., etc.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 7:00 AM Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
wrote:

> 5 Sep 2019, 00:40 by bainton.ete at gmail.com:
>
> Out of interest, is OS's position on derived data clearly the correct one
> legally speaking?  I note the wiki talks in terms of OS 'claiming' IP in
> the derived data, not that it actually *is* their IP, so I wondered.
>
> As far as copyright goes, this seems fairly logical - without having
> copyright on derived data
> one would be allowed to trace OSM/Google maps/other copyrighted map, get
> exact copy and
> claim that it is free from any copyright/database rights/any legal
> limitations.
>
> That seems to be an obvious truck-sized loophole that is probably not
> supposed to exist.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20190905/48aecb6e/attachment.html>