[OSM-talk] walking - get them to carry a gps!

[Richard Fairhurst]

On 5 Jul 2006, at 17:18, Nick Black wrote:

>  So what's the difference between using a paper map for navigation and  
> using a digital map for navigation.  If you can use a paper map to  
> guide you, why not use the "snap to" features in a GPS unit?

AIUI the answer is in the grey area between the concept of an "implied  
licence" and the uses proscribed by copyright statute legislation.

A GPS using "snap to" is clear infringement. Co-ordinates from the  
copyrighted geodata in the GPS will directly be inserted into your GPX  
track [1]. It's what the CC-SA licence would call a derived work.  
Finding exact chapter and verse in CPDA 1988 (as amended) wouldn't be  
difficult.

But with a paper map, it's not so easy to prove - unless the actual act  
of infringement can be pinpointed (by being caught in the act, or by  
testimony), or the weight of coincidence of data makes any other  
explanation unlikely. (Trap streets are one clear way to lower the  
threshold of proof here.)

There are clearly some ways of using a copyrighted paper map that are  
infringements. Tracing lots of lines using a graphics tablet would be  
one. Copying all the streetnames from an A-Z would be another.

But there are also some uses of maps, both paper and digital, that are  
not infringing. Using an OS map to find where a friend's house is, for  
example, then driving there with a GPS logging the way, is almost  
certainly _not_ an infringement - even though there's some tiny amount  
of "derived work" in there.

The key here, I believe, is the legal concept of the "implied licence".  
This is explained here:
http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/copyright/ 
implied_copy_licence.htm

When you buy an OS map, you don't get much in the way of an explicit  
licence. About the only contractual stuff I can find on an Explorer map  
is the standard "Reproduction in whole or part by any means is  
prohibited..." and "Representation on this map... is no evidence of a  
public right of way". That is not really a satisfactory account of what  
you are, and aren't, allowed to do.

The ip.gov.uk site explains that "you will only be able to argue that  
you have an implied licence where all the circumstances suggest that  
the copyright owner expected you to use his or her copyright material  
in the way you are going to use it, even though this was never  
discussed and has not been written down anywhere". The copyright owner  
(OS) clearly expects you to use this map for navigation. There's the  
beginnings of your implied licence. But because it's not written down  
anywhere, exactly what you _can_ do is in the realm of lawyers'  
arguments.

(All of this, I'm coming to believe, is deeply tied up with the  
question of "are facts copyrightable?". I got an inconclusive but  
interesting answer from the Patents Office on that this morning, which  
among other things may cast a little doubt on Bridgeman vs Corel... but  
that's another story entirely. :) )

IAreallyNAL, though I did go to the same college as lots of the buggers.

cheers
Richard

[1] There may be some degree of mathematical interpolation, I don't  
know how these things work. But regardless, it's not "original work".