[Talk-us] Tiger Street Names and Copyright

Ian Dees ian.dees at gmail.com
Mon Feb 2 03:15:04 GMT 2009

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Russ Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:

> SteveC writes:
>  > Right but the names on the streets might not be facts. They might be
>  > wrong *on purpose*.
>  >
>  >      http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_Easter_Eggs
> The reason mapmakers get away with copyrighting facts about the world
> is because no map includes everything.  The decison of what to
> include, and how to render it, is very much a creative decision.
> Creating map features which don't exist on the ground is (as Steve
> points out) also a creative decision.  Copying those features is
> infringement.
> I know of no evidence that Microsoft has been creative with either the
> topo maps nor the DOQs.
> I'm not a lawyer; this isn't a legal opinion.

I know about Copyright easter eggs and OSM's legal opinion. I'm just saying
that it's my opinion that copying the *names* of roads is perfectly legal
because the map makers are not making any attempt at adding creativity (the
ability to copyright depends on a creative work based on fact). I don't
agree that disregarding parts of fact is adding creativity.

Anywhoo, I'm just reiterating my point. Not trying to say anyone should or
should not do it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20090201/413fe91b/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list