[Talk-us] US Addressing

Brian May bmay at mapwise.com
Thu Nov 29 19:59:02 GMT 2012


If Sanborn was just a contractor hired by the govmt agency to help with 
digitizing, data conversion, etc. there should be no copyright issues 
with them. I didn't see a reference to Sanborn in the parcel metadata.

Brian

  On 11/29/2012 2:36 PM, Jim McAndrew wrote:
> The city/county of Denver, CO does have a parcels database (in a bunch 
> of formats)
> (http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-parcels)
>
> But it is licensed under a CC BY 3.0 License
> (http://data.denvergov.org/dataset/city-and-county-of-denver-parcels)
>
> Is this something that should even be added to the spreadsheet?  It 
> looks like all their data is from Sanborn, so the older data should be 
> out of copyright by now, if it can be found elsewhere.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Steven Johnson <sejohnson8 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:sejohnson8 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     That was exactly my reaction as well. My understanding is that
>     these data are essentially in the public domain. I'll note it in
>     the spreadsheet.
>
>
>     -- SEJ
>     -- twitter: @geomantic
>     -- skype: sejohnson8
>
>     "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
>     eighteen." -- Einstein
>
>
>
>     On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Brian May <bmay at mapwise.com
>     <mailto:bmay at mapwise.com>> wrote:
>
>         On 11/29/2012 1:11 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
>             On 11/29/12 1:03 PM, Steven Johnson wrote:
>
>                 The
>                 data are copyrighted and Arlington County owns all
>                 rights to the data and
>                 allows use "...as an acknowledged source to produce
>                 maps or analysis but
>                 you may not redistribute, resell, or copy the data
>                 (except for back-up
>                 purposes)."
>
>             the redistribute clause is a real problem, as we don't
>             attempt to control
>             people taking copies of OSM as long as they honor the
>             ODbL. i'd say this
>             license is ODbL incompatible (not a lawyer, though.)
>
>             richard
>
>
>         Local governments may claim copyright, but whether they can
>         legally is another matter. A very quick review of Virginia
>         state law appears to show they have liberal open records laws.
>         http://www.opengovva.org/virginias-foia-the-law
>
>         We should probably track these public records problems, e.g.
>         counties and cities that claim copyright, etc but the state
>         law says otherwise.
>
>         Brian
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Talk-us mailing list
>         Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>         http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Talk-us mailing list
>     Talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
>     http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20121129/1aee63ed/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list