| |||||||||||||
Reconciliation between CC and ODCReconciliation between CC and ODCPosted Jan 22, 2011 12:45 UTC (Sat) by epa (subscriber, #39769)In reply to: Reconciliation between CC and ODC by nybble41 Parent article: OpenStreetMap's point of no return
That's kind of the whole point; a collection of map data, digital or otherwise, is a *database*, not a map. It may be used to *make* a map, but it is not a map by itself.I think we will have to agree to differ on that. To my mind you could equally say that an electronic dictionary (as supplied with a word processor, for example) is a database, not a dictionary, although it may be used to make a dictionary. The contents of Wikipedia (when downloaded as the raw data) is a database, not an encylopaedia, though it can be used to make one. A vector graphics file such as SVG is a database which can later be used to make an image. Even program source code is a structured database which can be used to generate a program (by compiling it). All quite true points, but in my view they do not affect copyrightability, and do not affect the general principle that a map is a map, and music is music, no matter whether using computer-readable or dead-tree storage. It would be most odd if just adding '...but on a COMPUTER storing the result in a DATABASE' to any activity caused the copyright status to change. Although many business method patents have shown just that, so there is a chance you could be right.
(Log in to post comments)
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 22, 2011 18:33 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
a phone book includes addresses, which is map data, according to you, this is as good as bing a map.
however, it's been ruled by the courts that phone books are not copywritable because they are just unoriginal listings of facts.
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 23, 2011 20:19 UTC (Sun) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] a phone book includes addresses, which is map data, according to you, this is as good as bing a map.I don't think a list of addresses is really anything like a map. A map is a schematic representation of certain chosen features of the real world (whether physical features, or conceptual ones like political boundaries), transformed into an abstract geometric space (most commonly a 2-d plane) using a fixed projection. A phone book doesn't really contain any map information, nor can you extract map information from it. So I don't think it is a map, and that is why it does not fall under the copyrightability of maps. I didn't mean to imply that any collection of facts about the real world or about addresses or location of objects is automatically considered a map.
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 24, 2011 1:17 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
a map as you define it 'a schematic representation of certain chosen features of the real world (whether physical features, or conceptual ones like political boundaries), transformed into an abstract geometric space (most commonly a 2-d plane) using a fixed projection.' is copyrightable, nobody is disputing that
however, what is in doubt is if a list of the 'chosen features of the real world' without the 'schematic representation' or the step of being 'transformed into an abstract geometric space' is copyrightable
the OSM database isn't the representation, it's the list of features of the real world. in other words, a list of facts
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 24, 2011 11:28 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
Have a look at the OSM data, perhaps as an XML download. You will see that it has a schematic representation, in this case a series of abstract 'tags' which are used to represent concepts such as a road, a building or access rights. It also uses an abstract geometric space, in this case a two-dimensional plane, where points on the earth's surface are mapped onto the plane using the WGS84 coordinate system.
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 24, 2011 15:13 UTC (Mon) by an+h0ny (guest, #72530) [Link]
"however, what is in doubt is if a list of the 'chosen features of the real world' without the 'schematic representation' or the step of being 'transformed into an abstract geometric space' is copyrightable"
While I believe epa answered this question (OSM *does* have these things), I also have to beg to differ that a list of chosen features of the real world is not copyrightable.
Copyrightability requires creative arrangement *or* selection (*or* both). A selection of facts about the world which are useful for creating a map would, in itself, be copyrightable in the US, because it takes human creativity to decide which facts are useful and which are not.
Now, that said, go back to epa's answer and take a look some time at OSM. Or just take a look at the database schema (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Database_schema). The basic building blocks of the OSM database are not "facts", they're "nodes" (points), "ways" (lines), and "relations" (which, among other things, can represent polygons). Go to http://www.openstreetmap.org/ and edit things a bit. The software (Potlatch) does not ask for a list of facts, it provides a canvas on which you can draw things.
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 23, 2011 7:01 UTC (Sun) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]
Once again you have latched onto irrelevant details while ignoring the real point, which (for the reading-comprehension-impaired) is as follows: raw map data is not properly copyrightable because it consists of *nothing more* than a set of facts. Not because it is digital, or on a computer, or because it can be used to make a map, but because, being nothing but raw, unoriginal, uncreative facts, it contains no original creative expression, which is the foundation of any copyright claim.
The claim that a map may have to copyright rests on the fact that a map can contain more than just the raw facts--in particular that it can contain some element of original creative expression. Copyright applies only to the creative element; another map containing the same facts, but *not* the original aspects, would not be in violation. Program source code is the same way: copyright does not grant exclusive rights over the program's formulas or processes--the raw facts--but only to the particular way in which they are implemented. A second program which computes the same results or performs the same actions but does not copy any of the creative expression from the first implementation would not be infringing.
In short, if you want to argue that copyright has any relevance to the OSM database you need to show that it contains some original selection, arrangement, or annotation, which are within the domain of copyright, in addition to the plain facts, which are not.
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 23, 2011 8:00 UTC (Sun) by jthill (guest, #56558) [Link] Consider that making a map requires selecting a small subset of a really massive amount of data, and not merely listing the facts it contains but highlighting the most relevant information, in a way which makes it easy to find what that map's users are looking for. None of that is needed for a phone book. Phone books are data dumps. Maps are intelligently-constructed renderings. Phone books are not copyright. Maps are. You can say should and shouldn't until the cows die of old age, brainless work isn't protected.
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 23, 2011 13:49 UTC (Sun) by HamishB (guest, #72529) [Link]
> In short, if you want to argue that copyright has any relevance to the
> OSM database you need to show that it contains some original selection, > arrangement, or annotation, which are within the domain of copyright, in > addition to the plain facts, which are not.
[reposted from the Australia/New Zealand OSGeo mailing list thread on this topic; Sept 2010]
fwiw, I consider my work on OSM to be a useful art- the map data is not
the telephone number is not an abstraction of a telephone number, it /is/
in this way the OSM database has a lot more copyrightable work in it than
also, without a ShareAlike-style license, for my part I doubt I'd bother
2c,
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 23, 2011 16:23 UTC (Sun) by an+h0ny (guest, #72530) [Link]
"raw map data is not properly copyrightable because it consists of *nothing more* than a set of facts."
First of all, OSM is not merely "raw map data". It is not "nothing more than a set of facts". OSM is the source code for a map, which, when combined with a stylesheet (e.g. http://trac.openstreetmap.org/browser/applications/render...) and a compiler (e.g. Mapnik), produces a map.
Secondly, "a set of facts" *is* copyrightable, if there is selection or arrangement of those facts. OSM is a selected, organized, cross-linked set of facts expressed in a non-human language.
If you are going to claim that OSM is "*nothing more* than a set of facts", then you should be able to provide a simple and obvious explanation of what category of facts OSM covers. For instance, the white pages is "a listing of the name, address, and phone number of every person in a certain geographic area".
What is OSM? "A listing of all geographic facts about the world"? Certainly not. What is it? What is the *idea*, which you are saying can be merged with the *expression*.
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 23, 2011 20:27 UTC (Sun) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
If I understand you rightly you are saying that the copyright subsisting in maps (in countries such as the USA) is only in such creative element as the map contains. A consequence of that would be that it is not infringing copyright to make a copy of a map, provided you only copy the factual data and not any of the creative part. In other words you could buy a tourist map of New York City and trace over it to extract out purely factual information such as street layout, and make your own map provided you didn't copy the typography or colours or recommended restaurants or other creative element.
If that is the case, then I thoroughly agree that doing the same process using a computer and a computer-readable representation of the same map would not be any more copyrightable.
However I don't think it is the case, because maps are explicitly covered by copyright law, and I don't believe this coverage is hedged with anything like 'but only the creative part, not the factual part'.
I don't mean to imply that making a map of an area grants an absolute monopoly over the facts it contains. Anyone else can go out and independently survey the same area. But I don't think they can simply copy the map somebody else produced, even if they just copy the facts such as the position of objects or their names. If that were so, then all maps would be pretty close to being in the public domain, and projects such as OSM would be either unnecessary or trivially easy to complete by copying from existing maps.
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 24, 2011 4:41 UTC (Mon) by an+h0ny (guest, #72530) [Link]
"A consequence of that would be that it is not infringing copyright to make a copy of a map, provided you only copy the factual data and not any of the creative part."
This is correct. "The protection that each map receives extends only to its original expression, and neither the facts nor the idea embodied in the maps is protected." (Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc., http://www.coolcopyright.com/cases/fulltext/masonmontgome...)
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 24, 2011 4:59 UTC (Mon) by an+h0ny (guest, #72530) [Link]
By the way, I recommend you read Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc. in its entirety. Yes, copyright does not restrict the copying of facts, but lines on a map, which represent facts, are not necessarily facts in themselves (and I see no reason that digitally encoded lines should be any different from printed ones).
Reconciliation between CC and ODC Posted Jan 26, 2011 0:46 UTC (Wed) by jrochkind (guest, #72573) [Link]
Nope, you probably can't _trace_ it, because the exact lines and curves are probably copyrightable.
But you can look at where the streets are, and redraw it yourself. Or use the street names to fill in blanks on the map you drew seperately. Etc.
In the U.S. This discussion has a lot of people mentioning "the statute" without saying what statute in what country! In the US at least, the actual bounds of copyright are (and have been for 100 years) defined more by case law than statute.
|
|||||||||||||