[OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?

[Chris Hill]

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!
>   
I know all about NaPTAN - I am currently visiting every one of the 1299 
bus stops in Hull to check that the NaPTAN import is correct, and 
finding a significant number that are not.  NaPTAN brings us benefits, 
but since every stop needs checking, time saving might not be one of 
them.  Most imports bring similar issues of checking. 

I don't want the work done in your area jeopardized by a letter from 
OS's lawyers.


Cheers, Chris