Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS map copyright expiry dates, FOI request
On 30 Sep 2009, at 04:50, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) wrote: > I've mad a further FOI request to the OS today seeking clarification > with > respect to those OS maps that do not carry a Crown Copyright (c) > date. This > is the case with a lot of the First edition 1:25,000 sheets which > have a > published date and a separate corrections/changes/additions date. > I'm very > much hoping the published date still applies as per the response to > TimSC's > request. > > It's interesting to note that the OS doesn't regularly go after > copyright > infringers in the courts. You would think it would be more often > than once > in a blue moon. that's what they *want* you to think :-) > http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/aboutus/foi/questions/2009/0059.ht > ml > > Cheers > > Andy > >> -Original Message- >> From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk- >> boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of TimSC >> Sent: 14 September 2009 8:36 PM >> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] OS map copyright expiry dates, FOI request >> >> >> To legal-talk, >> >> I was trying to think of a way to clarify the situation on copyright >> expiry of OS maps. One interpretation is the 50 years copyright >> starts >> when the map was last updated. Another is the copyright clock >> starts on >> the year of the copyright notice. To get an answer, what better way >> than >> to ask ordinance survey themselves? Under the freedom of >> information, I >> asked about a specific example (detailed below). >> >> The response seems to indicate OS's view is the copyright expires 50 >> after the year of the copyright notice. This is good news as it makes >> many maps available for our use. The next question that occurs is >> can OS >> reverse their view or is an FOI binding in some way. (Note the >> disclaimer of the email.) Any thoughts from the community on this >> would >> be good... >> >> If my question or their answer was ambiguous, we can always do >> another >> FOI request. >> >> Regards, >> >> TimSC >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Customer Services >> Sent: 14 September 2009 12:05 >> To: Tim Sheerman-Chase >> Subject: RE: Freedom of Information. Reference: SAP 71979 >> >> Dear Mr Sheerman-Chase >> >> Ordnance Survey reference: 71979 >> >> Thank you for your email dated 30 August 2009 requesting: "I have a >> sheet that has the following markings: "Made and published by the >> Director General of the OS, Chessington, Surrey 1960 Reprinted with >> minor changes 1965 Crown copyright (C) 1960"" >> >> "Which date is used to calculate when the copyright will lapse? Would >> this either be either 1st Jan 2011 or 1st Jan 2016 or another date?" >> >> We are pleased to provide you with the following information with >> regard >> to your request: >> The Crown copyright subsisting in a hard copy printed OS map will >> subsist from the end of the calendar year in which it was published >> until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar >> year in which it was published, meaning 1 January 2011. >> >> Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of >> Information guidelines. As all requested information has been >> provided, >> we have determined that in all the circumstances of this case the >> Public >> interest consideration (section 17 FOIA) is not applicable in this >> instance. >> >> If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our >> Appeals Officer at: >> >> Complaints Team >> Customer Service Centre >> Ordnance Survey >> Romsey Road >> SOUTHAMPTON >> SO16 4GU >> >> Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will >> ensure that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any >> decisions taken regarding the original response and recommending >> disclosure of additional information if appropriate. >> >> Thank you for your enquiry. >> >> Yours sincerely >> >> Tony Gray >> >> Freedom of Information Pracitioner >> Ordnance Survey >> Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU >> Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505 | Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615 >> www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk >> >> Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing >> this >> email. >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Tim Sheerman-Chase [mailto:**] >> Sent: 30 August 2009 19:10 >> To: Customer Services >> Subject: Freedom of Information. Reference: SAP 71979 >> >> FOI Enquiries, >> >> I have a question under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding >> the crown copyright of OS map sheets. I have a sheet that has the >> following markings: >> >> "Made and published by the Director General of the OS, Chessington, >> Surrey 1960 >> Reprinted with minor changes 1965 >> >> Crown copyright (C) 1960" >> >> Which date is used to calculate when the copyright will lapse? Would >> this either be either 1st Jan 2011 or 1st Jan 2016 o
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS map copyright expiry dates, FOI request
I've mad a further FOI request to the OS today seeking clarification with respect to those OS maps that do not carry a Crown Copyright (c) date. This is the case with a lot of the First edition 1:25,000 sheets which have a published date and a separate corrections/changes/additions date. I'm very much hoping the published date still applies as per the response to TimSC's request. It's interesting to note that the OS doesn't regularly go after copyright infringers in the courts. You would think it would be more often than once in a blue moon. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/aboutus/foi/questions/2009/0059.ht ml Cheers Andy >-Original Message- >From: legal-talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk- >boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of TimSC >Sent: 14 September 2009 8:36 PM >To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] OS map copyright expiry dates, FOI request > > >To legal-talk, > >I was trying to think of a way to clarify the situation on copyright >expiry of OS maps. One interpretation is the 50 years copyright starts >when the map was last updated. Another is the copyright clock starts on >the year of the copyright notice. To get an answer, what better way than >to ask ordinance survey themselves? Under the freedom of information, I >asked about a specific example (detailed below). > >The response seems to indicate OS's view is the copyright expires 50 >after the year of the copyright notice. This is good news as it makes >many maps available for our use. The next question that occurs is can OS >reverse their view or is an FOI binding in some way. (Note the >disclaimer of the email.) Any thoughts from the community on this would >be good... > >If my question or their answer was ambiguous, we can always do another >FOI request. > >Regards, > >TimSC > >-Original Message- >From: Customer Services >Sent: 14 September 2009 12:05 >To: Tim Sheerman-Chase >Subject: RE: Freedom of Information. Reference: SAP 71979 > >Dear Mr Sheerman-Chase > >Ordnance Survey reference: 71979 > >Thank you for your email dated 30 August 2009 requesting: "I have a >sheet that has the following markings: "Made and published by the >Director General of the OS, Chessington, Surrey 1960 Reprinted with >minor changes 1965 Crown copyright (C) 1960"" > >"Which date is used to calculate when the copyright will lapse? Would >this either be either 1st Jan 2011 or 1st Jan 2016 or another date?" > >We are pleased to provide you with the following information with regard >to your request: >The Crown copyright subsisting in a hard copy printed OS map will >subsist from the end of the calendar year in which it was published >until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar >year in which it was published, meaning 1 January 2011. > >Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of >Information guidelines. As all requested information has been provided, >we have determined that in all the circumstances of this case the Public >interest consideration (section 17 FOIA) is not applicable in this >instance. > >If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our >Appeals Officer at: > >Complaints Team >Customer Service Centre >Ordnance Survey >Romsey Road >SOUTHAMPTON >SO16 4GU > >Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will >ensure that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any >decisions taken regarding the original response and recommending >disclosure of additional information if appropriate. > >Thank you for your enquiry. > >Yours sincerely > >Tony Gray > >Freedom of Information Pracitioner >Ordnance Survey >Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU >Phone: +44 (0) 8456 050505 | Fax: +44 (0) 23 8079 2615 >www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk | customerservi...@ordnancesurvey.co.uk > >Please consider your environmental responsibility before printing this >email. > >-Original Message- >From: Tim Sheerman-Chase [mailto:**] >Sent: 30 August 2009 19:10 >To: Customer Services >Subject: Freedom of Information. Reference: SAP 71979 > >FOI Enquiries, > >I have a question under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding >the crown copyright of OS map sheets. I have a sheet that has the >following markings: > >"Made and published by the Director General of the OS, Chessington, >Surrey 1960 >Reprinted with minor changes 1965 > >Crown copyright (C) 1960" > >Which date is used to calculate when the copyright will lapse? Would >this either be either 1st Jan 2011 or 1st Jan 2016 or another date? > >Thanks, > >Tim Sheerman-Chase > > >This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and >may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in >error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be >copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person. > >Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email a
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Matt Amos wrote: >>> And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights >>> over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by >>> invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the >>> contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in >>> Europe, also terminates after 15 years? >> >> you're wrong - the contract asserts no rights over the collection. >> that's why we need a contract, because there are no "sui generis" >> rights to take advantage of. > > I don't think I understand you, or maybe you don't understand me. I'll > try this in individual steps: > Clearer now? i understood that part of your point the first time around, but i was correcting your claim that the ODbL "tries ... to assert rights over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none". i was pointing out that ODbL doesn't (and, as you say, can't) claim any *rights*, so it has to try to emulate them using contract law instead. maybe this is why lawyers use capitalised terms, like Rights, with a defined meaning :-) but i take your point about the variable length of the protection in different jurisdictions. maybe it's cold comfort that any copyright-based license has exactly the same problem. i can't find anywhere in the GPL, for example, which states the length of the term and countries have wildly varying copyright terms according to [1] (from life+100 years in mexico down to life+25 in the seychelles or even 0 in the marshall islands, where copyright law doesn't exist) >> yes. over insubstantial amounts of data, there's no copyright claimed. > > Aren't you now mixing database law and copyright terms. Whether or not > something falls under copyright has nothing to with whether it is > substantial related to some kind of database, has it? well, in some jurisdictions there might be copyright over the data arrangement, but - you're right - that's not what i meant. i should have said "database rights". > For example if OSM user "n80" artfully crafts a way that doesn't even > exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps be protected by > copyright in some jurisdictions, completely independent of the database > and whether or not it is substantial. > > If I read the contributor agreement correctly, then we require from > "n80" that he declares never to exercise his copyright. Whether or not, > and for how long, database protection covers his work of art, does not > come into the equation - the copyright question is over when the data is > uploaded. Correct? the contributor terms covers the copyright in individual elements, granting a "worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other". so, yes; individual data items come with a very liberal license. this doesn't mean that certain aspects of copyright don't still exist (e.g: in some jurisdictions an author's moral rights are non-waivable), but then we can start arguing over whether any copyright is valid over factual data, etc... etc... cheers, matt [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries%27_copyright_length ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
Frederik Ramm wrote: > For example if OSM user "n80" artfully crafts a way that doesn't > even exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps > be protected by copyright in some jurisdictions, completely > independent of the database and whether or not it is substantial. I think we need to get away from this OSM canard that trivial Easter eggs (we'd spot and delete any non-trivial ones, of course) can be copyrighted or otherwise protected. People keep reciting it as if it's fact, but it smells of finest bullshit to me - unless someone can actually point to chapter and verse in a major jurisdiction where they might be copyrightable. They wouldn't be in the UK, and UK copyright law is more draconian than pretty much anywhere else. Easter eggs are there to swing the balance of proof in a case of suspected infringement. Nothing more. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Protection-time-of-ODbL-tp25666837p25678041.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
Hi, James Livingston wrote: > On 30/09/2009, at 7:36 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Question is: 1. what about the contents themselves. Have we reached a >> consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not >> protected >> by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any >> copyright? > > I don't think that a consensus on what we think matters when > discussing whether the contents of the database are protected by > copyright Well if you say you don't claim any then for all intents and purposes it does not matter whether your jurisdiction says that you could claim copyright or that you couldn't. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
On 30/09/2009, at 7:36 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Question is: 1. what about the contents themselves. Have we reached a > consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not > protected > by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any > copyright? I don't think that a consensus on what we think matters when discussing whether the contents of the database are protected by copyright, the laws of various countries matter. In some countries the answer is no, in some countries the answer is yes, and in some countries it's probably a grey area. > And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert > rights > over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by > invoking the idea of a contract And I believe it has to use the idea of a contact because there are countries where there are no database or copyright rights that apply, or they are not effecting. I believe the US falls into this category because it doesn't have database rights, copyright on facts or copyright on databases. > so where is it written that the > contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in > Europe, also terminates after 15 years? I don't think it is written there. So I would assume that the contact part lasts in-perpetuity, and you're not going to get the data after 15 years in Europe. [snipped] > We require from our contributors that they grant OSMF and any > recipient > of the data to do anything that would normally be restricted by > copyright Another thing to consider is what happens when The Contents that I'm uploading comes from another database, protected by a sui generis database right, or copyright on the database? I don't see any mention of that in the Contributor Terms. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
Matt Amos writes: >>Have we reached a >>consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not protected >>by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any copyright? > >yes. see the contributor terms document. I think what might have been meant is not 'does the OSM foundation claim copyright over the map data' but rather 'do we claim that the map data is a work subject to copyright'. As far as I know OSM is still making that claim, and there are no plans to change this. -- Ed Avis ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
Hi, Frederik Ramm wrote: > So *either* it's free-for-all after 15 years in Europe but then it is > also free-for-all after 1 day in the US. ... *or* the contractual component is still valid in Europe even after the sui generes protection expires, which validates the OP's question. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL
Matt, Matt Amos wrote: >> And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights >> over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by >> invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the >> contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in >> Europe, also terminates after 15 years? > > you're wrong - the contract asserts no rights over the collection. > that's why we need a contract, because there are no "sui generis" > rights to take advantage of. I don't think I understand you, or maybe you don't understand me. I'll try this in individual steps: 1. We want to protect the database as a whole; 2. For countries with database law we can sail under that law; 3. but for countries without we need to use a contractual component; 4. such a contractual component is built into the ODbL; 5. the contractual component doesn't have an explicit time limit; 6. the ODbL doesn't say "the contractual component is only valid for those countries without database law"; 7. which means the contractual component which protects our data from day one in places like the US is also valid in Europe (where it usually takes backstage to the stronger database law component); 8. from this it follows that after 15 years, a planet file in Europe is protected no more or less than a fresh planet file in the US. So *either* it's free-for-all after 15 years in Europe but then it is also free-for-all after 1 day in the US. Clearer now? > yes. over insubstantial amounts of data, there's no copyright claimed. Aren't you now mixing database law and copyright terms. Whether or not something falls under copyright has nothing to with whether it is substantial related to some kind of database, has it? For example if OSM user "n80" artfully crafts a way that doesn't even exist and uploads it to OSM, then that way would perhaps be protected by copyright in some jurisdictions, completely independent of the database and whether or not it is substantial. If I read the contributor agreement correctly, then we require from "n80" that he declares never to exercise his copyright. Whether or not, and for how long, database protection covers his work of art, does not come into the equation - the copyright question is over when the data is uploaded. Correct? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
