OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

Posted Oct 23, 2008 10:53 UTC (Thu) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375)
Parent article: OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

Our Editor's comment about not being able to copyright facts seems a USA issue; the idea seems to me a legal fiction because there are many ways to embody a fact. Consider a map: it is a mapping to paper of a physical layout, and there are a number of known and popular projections when mapping the surface of a planet to flat paper.

I'm unsure about other jurisdictions but, in the UK, Copyright in an original work requires expenditure of more than a trivial degree of independent skill, labour and judgement. In the case preparing the maps for OSM, it's arguable that the skill required in operating the GPS device and converting its recorded information, the labour in travelling the journeys required to make the survey, and the judgement in editing the map data before upload would ensure that the embodiment of information justifies protection by copyright. Does the Berne Convention not mean that these criteria apply internationally?

I believe that copyright subsists in the OSM data. There will further be a database right in EU. Is there an assignment of copyright when you upload map data? If not, that's a slipup. But the real issue is that OSM may take on GIS providers whose datasets are extremely expensive. That will require some clear thinking about how to ensure that the community retains access to their mapping.

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

Posted Oct 23, 2008 11:45 UTC (Thu) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link] (1 responses)

> Consider a map: it is a mapping to paper of a physical layout, and there are a number of known and popular projections when mapping the surface of a planet to flat paper.

We are not talking about not being able to copyright the map. Of course a map is copyrightable. The choice of colors and other issues makes it an expression of creativity.

The database that contains those "facts" is a different beast though. It is just that: a collection of facts. And copyright does not apply to facts.

Fact & precision ? Multiple contributors ?

Posted Oct 27, 2008 17:29 UTC (Mon) by lacostej (guest, #2760) [Link]

Some ideas that probably mean not much...

How precise need a fact to be so that it becomes a fact ? The GPS positionning is precise up to a certain limit. Plus there are potential issues (hardware, user errors, etc..) that make the data in the database unique.

Think about a group of painters trying to reproduce a landscape, each with different tools. Althought the end result might be very similar to the reality (the facts), it could be slightly different enough to be seen as a creation. Futhermore, as the work is always in progress and uses so many contributors make it a special case. It's not like the creation was directed/controlled and the current result (a sub set of the reality) is some sort of community art. Or do we need changes in the law to manage those community gathered 'facts' ?

Finally: what about using colors to represent the GPS positions ? :) Or losing some precision/introducing small errors voluntarily in order to make the result a creation ?

OpenStreetMap contemplates licensing

Posted Oct 28, 2008 4:43 UTC (Tue) by dvdeug (guest, #10998) [Link]

Standards for copyrightability vary around the world. The UK is generally believed to admit copyrights for stuff the US won't. Under US law, a copy of a PD painting, no matter how skillful, laborious or judgement-requiring, does not permit of a new copyright. Likewise, a phonebook doesn't get a copyright, nor does the listing of cable companies. Only creative works get a copyright; and the whole point behind something like this is not a new creative work, it's a recording of the physical facts of the world in a mechanical manner.