Ed Avis wrote: >Sent: 15 October 2009 11:34 AM >To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference >72267) > >Barnett, Phillip <phillip.barn...@...> writes: > >>The crux point is what triggers a new copyright date. >> >>Guidance notes from the OPSI - > >>"A reprint or new impression without any substantial changes to the text >would >>not constitute a new copyright work." >> >>The last sentence is the important one - of the examples that you sent to >them >>below, all explicitly claim 'minor' changes to the work, and so the OPSI >>guidelines indicate that no copyright date change would be the >>case, > >Not so. 'Minor changes' is not the same as 'no substantial changes'. If >they >have revised the map based on resurveying the area, even if just to add a >couple of new roads or a housing development, or to correct mistakes, >it's pretty clear that a new copyright period comes into existence.
How so? Can you provide some evidence of why this is the case? > >>So the situation should be - >>A map published with a (c) date means the (c) date applies and if no (c) >date >>printed then the FIRST publication date on the sheet applies. > >No, if no copyright date is there then the most recent revision applies. >If the map was first issued in 1950, revised in 1960, then reprinted with >no changes (or no substantial changes, e.g. just a new cover sheet) in >1970, >then the copyright period is from 1960 onwards. > Well, the question is surely whether the changes made were substantial or not. Almost without question the reprints of the 1:25k sheets between major republications (and new published dates) of the same map are stated to be either minor corrections or minor changes. Mostly this I believe is road alignment adjustment and occasionally a new road here and there. >>And we have plenty of examples collected of where the revision date is >later >>than the explicitly printed copyright date, which rather proves my point. >(eg >>my copy of SO13, Talgarth, (c) 1951, major road revisions 1976) > >That does argue for your position but I don't think it is strong enough >evidence. > Which is why I sought clarification. But I'm not convinced that the OS has ruled correctly and so it's worth further discussion and if necessary appeal. >>Now, who's going to take this up with Tony Gray? (I'm happy to argue the >>point, if you don't mind my quoting your correspondence. Otherwise I'll >just >>point him to the OPSI guidance) > >Would it not be better to get a legal opinion? If you are offering to pay for one that would be great. Seems to me that we have some opportunities for discussion first and even an appeal draft, though before that is sent I do think it would be wise to pass it across legal. Cheers Andy _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
