[OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?

[Shaun McDonald]

On 25 Sep 2009, at 15:27, Dave F. wrote:

> Chris Hill wrote:
>> Dave F. wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local
>>>>> council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of  
>>>>> way,
>>>>> and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council.  
>>>>> When
>>>>> they make a legal order to record a public right of way they  
>>>>> send a copy
>>>>> of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of  
>>>>> way onto
>>>>> their own maps.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council  
>>>> has
>>>> referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way.  
>>>> If
>>>> they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and  
>>>> infected by
>>>> their copyright etc.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS  
>>> underlay,
>>> but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered  
>>> info.
>>> eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to  
>>> produce
>>> the definitive maps.
>>> It would come down to what you, I, council & OS mean by 'define' I  
>>> suppose.
>>>
>>> This is the copyright at the bottom:
>>> "Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission  
>>> of the
>>> Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright.
>>> Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to
>>> prosecution or civil proceedings."
>>>
>>> Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is  
>>> significant
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS  
>>> underlay
>>> map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference?
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Dave F.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The copyright statement at the bottom is all that counts.  OS will  
>> claim
>> it is a derivative work, so, they could claim that if you copy from  
>> it
>> into OSM you will be in breach their copyright.  The tracks only gain
>> context because they are on an OS map.  The only way to settle who  
>> is in
>> the wrong is to go to court, which OSM cannot afford.  I don't like  
>> the
>> wide-ranging claims that the OS make about derivative works but I  
>> don't
>> think we can afford to ignore them.
>>
>> Why not walk or cycle the routes with a GPS, collect the tracks and
>> photos, enjoy some time in the countryside, add the paths to the map
>> with a clear conscience and metaphorically thumb your nose at the OS?
>>
> I do Chris, I do.
> However, if I can find a way to /legally/ import data I don't see a
> problem. Take a look at Transit Talk for examples of mass data import
> (Naptan). It saves hell of a lot of time!

Naptan is a specialist data set of points which is easy to import  
without huge conflicts or crap and inconsistent routing like with the  
TIGER data.

In general large bulk imports are a bad thing and should be avoided.  
The amount of time that you spend sorting out legalities, making sure  
the scripts are working and then fixing the potentially broken  
imported data, you could have been out there and mapped it properly  
from first principles.

Shaun

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2433 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090925/58850f4b/attachment.bin>