Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[Jukka Rahkonen]

davespod  writes:
> Jukka Rahkonen writes:
> 
> >I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are
> > effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways
> > tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not
> > copyrightable.
> > Everybody can use at least individual tracks for any purpose. At the
> > moment only OSM map data are under CC-BY-SA but track logs are free facts.
> 
> When we signed up to OSM, we agreed:
> 
> "By creating an account, you agree that all work uploaded to
> openstreetmap.org and all data created by use of any tools which connect to
> openstreetmap.org is to be (non-exclusively) licensed under this Creative
> Commons license (by-sa)"
> 
> Surely this includes GPS tracks?

It is clearly said and you must be right. I was just remembering how 
tracks were used in the early days. There were two alternatives for 
gpx files, either mark them as "public" or "private". For editors it 
did not make big difference because all that the user could see on the 
screen was anonymous GPS track points. Now I can see that it is possible 
to connect GPS track points with the creator of the gpx file if it is 
set as "Identifiable" 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Visibility_of_GPS_traces).

I suppose that we haven't often even tried to apply BY-SA for tracing 
from GPS track logs but only SA. The user just happily estimates some 
good average location from a seemingly anonymous GPS point cloud and 
the end result, the first version of a new OSM way gets marked as an 
original work done by that user, not as an derivative work based on a 
bunch of gpx files from various other user.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[davespod]

Jukka Rahkonen writes:
 
>I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are
> effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways
> tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not
> copyrightable.
> Everybody can use at least individual tracks for any purpose. At the
> moment only OSM map data are under CC-BY-SA but track logs are free facts.

When we signed up to OSM, we agreed:

"By creating an account, you agree that all work uploaded to
openstreetmap.org and all data created by use of any tools which connect to
openstreetmap.org is to be (non-exclusively) licensed under this Creative
Commons license (by-sa)"

Surely this includes GPS tracks? Ok, the issue of whether they are
copyrightable is still up for debate, but presumably the answer is, as
usual, "probably in some jurisdictions" (IANAL). But by uploading them to
OSM and releasing them CC-by-SA, we have certainly tried to assert
copyright, at the very least (which is a shame - although I might have some
misgivings about the map data being PD, I, and I'm sure most others would
have no such misgivings about GPS traces).


David
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-ODbL-CTs-and-tracing-GPS-tracks-tp5428829p5437347.html
Sent from the 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] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[Ed Avis]

1. While a GPS track recorded 'by accident' while you're doing something else
   could be considered mere fact, if you expressly go out on a mapping trip
   and choose which streets to walk down and which to omit, there is some
   creative element.  (I know that I walk in careful patterns to make a good-
   looking trace.)

2. Obviously, waypoint text included on the track is copyrightable.

3. If OSM chooses to switch to ODbL, and attempts to assert restrictions over 
the
   redistribution of factual data even if not copyrightable, it would be
   inconsistent to treat other people's data with less than the strictness we
   demand for our own.  (This point is obviously an opinion.)

4. Sweat-of-the-brow and/or database right law would also argue against
   unrestricted use of GPS tracks outside the purpose for which they were
   originally contributed.

5. If GPS tracks were, in the end, considered unprotected and freely usable
   for adding to a non-CC-BY-SA data set, then most of the map data would be
   also, by the same argument.

-- 
Ed Avis 


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[TimSC]

Assuming GPS tracks have some legal protection in some legal 
jurisdictions, does anyone care to take a stab at answering my original 
question? :)


TimSC


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[John Smith]

On 18 August 2010 01:51, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> It's no more or less factual than recording temperature and other
> meteorological data at a weather station.

In most countries various government and non-government organisations
try to claim copyright over that sort of information.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[Rob Myers]

On 08/17/2010 05:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2010/8/17 Eugene Alvin Villar:

It's no more or less factual than recording temperature and other
meteorological data at a weather station.


IMHO it is not comparable at all, because we don't turn simply the gps
on and wait what it registers, but we actively move around on purpose
to record tracks. This is completely different because you do it
actively as opposed to collecting meteorological data usually trying
the opposite: not to influence the measurement.


The information recorded is not, however, arbitrary or fanciful. It is 
intended to be a competent record of an existing geographic feature that 
fits a pre-existing category (e.g. a road).


It is creative only to the extent that it is incompetent.

- Rob.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:54 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jukka Rahkonen <
> jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi> wrote:
>
>> TimSC  writes:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Apologies if this has been raised before, but I was wondering about GPS
>> > track data and licenses. Presumably we are using public GPS trace data
>> > under CC-BY-SA. By the way, it would be helpful to clarify that on the
>> > wiki. I'll ignore the problem of tracing other people's tracks and the
>> > resulting relicensing issues. At the moment, I am considering how GPS
>> > tracks work with the CT and ODbL (assuming they too will be relicensed).
>>
>> I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are
>> effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways
>> tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not
>> copyrightable.
>>
>
> Is this a correct understanding of what a fact is, from a legal point of
> view?
>
> A telephone number is a fact in the sense that it is it's own identity.  A
> copy will be identical.  And this seems to be the basis of much US case law
> in this area.  On the other hand GPS tracks are made up of information, but
> they are samples of a paths and no two sets of GPS tracks will ever be
> identical.  The stuff of GPS tracks is very different from the stuff of
> telephone numbers.
>
> Before using the "GPS tracks are facts" meme we really should have a better
> understanding of what constitutes a fact, in legal terms.
>

I think the "GPS tracks are facts" meme simply means that the tracks are a
recording of where the GPS device has calculated its position to be at
certain moments in time. The fact is not "this road is at so-and-so
coordinates", because the GPS tracks does not have to correspond to a road
or anything else on the ground at all, but rather, the fact is that  the
"GPS device has recorded its position at so-and-so coordinates at so-and-so
point in time".

It's no more or less factual than recording temperature and other
meteorological data at a weather station.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[Jukka Rahkonen]

80n <80n...@...> writes:


> Jukka Rahkonen wrote:

>> I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are
>> effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways
>> tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not 
>> copyrightable.

> Is this a correct understanding of what a fact is, from a legal point
> of view? A telephone number is a fact in the sense that it is it's own
> identity.  A copy will be identical.  And this seems to be the basis 
> of much US case law in this area.  On the other hand GPS tracks are 
> made up of information, but they are samples of a paths and no two 
> sets of GPS tracks will ever be identical.  The stuff of GPS tracks 
> is very different from the stuff of telephone numbers.Before using 
> the "GPS tracks are facts" meme we really should have a better 
> understanding of what constitutes a fact, in legal terms. 

I can't say how facts look like from the legal point of view, or if such 
exist at all. In real life many of us consider also unrepeatable 
approximations as facts, like how much we weight. Completely defined  
facts like telephone numbers are rare exceptions. Most measurements are 
more or less inaccurate. See for example 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

GPS track logs recorded with recreational GPS units are approximations of the
route, accurate to something like +/- 10 meters. I wouldn't say 
that due to this inaccuracy track logs are creative work. However, I 
wouldn't be surprised if they still are from the legal point of view.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[Peter Millar]

For some of us, our tracks a works of art; at least artful.

Certainly, Jeremy Wood thinks so: 


-- 
Peter Millar (sherbourne)

- "80n" <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jukka Rahkonen <
> jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi> wrote:
> 
> > TimSC  writes:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Apologies if this has been raised before, but I was wondering
> about GPS
> > > track data and licenses. Presumably we are using public GPS trace
> data
> > > under CC-BY-SA. By the way, it would be helpful to clarify that on
> the
> > > wiki. I'll ignore the problem of tracing other people's tracks and
> the
> > > resulting relicensing issues. At the moment, I am considering how
> GPS
> > > tracks work with the CT and ODbL (assuming they too will be
> relicensed).
> >
> > I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are
> > effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways
> > tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not
> > copyrightable.
> >
> 
> Is this a correct understanding of what a fact is, from a legal point
> of
> view?
> 
> A telephone number is a fact in the sense that it is it's own
> identity.  A
> copy will be identical.  And this seems to be the basis of much US
> case law
> in this area.  On the other hand GPS tracks are made up of
> information, but
> they are samples of a paths and no two sets of GPS tracks will ever
> be
> identical.  The stuff of GPS tracks is very different from the stuff
> of
> telephone numbers.
> 
> Before using the "GPS tracks are facts" meme we really should have a
> better
> understanding of what constitutes a fact, in legal terms.
> 
> 
> 
> >  Everybody can use at least individual tracks for any purpose. At
> the
> > moment only OSM map data are under CC-BY-SA but track logs are free
> facts.
> > Anybody can download the original track logs, trace from them and
> create a
> > commercial or public domain map from those.
> >
> > I believe that after the possible license change there would not be
> any
> > difference between GPS track logs and other kind of contributions
> and they
> > would all be covered by ODbL and contributor terms.
> >
> >
> > ___
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> >
> 
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



  

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[80n]

On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jukka Rahkonen <
jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi> wrote:

> TimSC  writes:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Apologies if this has been raised before, but I was wondering about GPS
> > track data and licenses. Presumably we are using public GPS trace data
> > under CC-BY-SA. By the way, it would be helpful to clarify that on the
> > wiki. I'll ignore the problem of tracing other people's tracks and the
> > resulting relicensing issues. At the moment, I am considering how GPS
> > tracks work with the CT and ODbL (assuming they too will be relicensed).
>
> I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are
> effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways
> tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not
> copyrightable.
>

Is this a correct understanding of what a fact is, from a legal point of
view?

A telephone number is a fact in the sense that it is it's own identity.  A
copy will be identical.  And this seems to be the basis of much US case law
in this area.  On the other hand GPS tracks are made up of information, but
they are samples of a paths and no two sets of GPS tracks will ever be
identical.  The stuff of GPS tracks is very different from the stuff of
telephone numbers.

Before using the "GPS tracks are facts" meme we really should have a better
understanding of what constitutes a fact, in legal terms.



>  Everybody can use at least individual tracks for any purpose. At the
> moment only OSM map data are under CC-BY-SA but track logs are free facts.
> Anybody can download the original track logs, trace from them and create a
> commercial or public domain map from those.
>
> I believe that after the possible license change there would not be any
> difference between GPS track logs and other kind of contributions and they
> would all be covered by ODbL and contributor terms.
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[TimSC]

On 17/08/10 08:58, Jukka Rahkonen wrote

I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are
effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways
tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not copyrightable.
   
Since there was "substantial investment" in obtaining the data, don't 
database rights come into play?


TimSC


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks

[Jukka Rahkonen]

TimSC  writes:
 
> Hi all,
> 
> Apologies if this has been raised before, but I was wondering about GPS 
> track data and licenses. Presumably we are using public GPS trace data 
> under CC-BY-SA. By the way, it would be helpful to clarify that on the 
> wiki. I'll ignore the problem of tracing other people's tracks and the 
> resulting relicensing issues. At the moment, I am considering how GPS 
> tracks work with the CT and ODbL (assuming they too will be relicensed).

I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are 
effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways 
tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not copyrightable.
 Everybody can use at least individual tracks for any purpose. At the 
moment only OSM map data are under CC-BY-SA but track logs are free facts.
Anybody can download the original track logs, trace from them and create a
commercial or public domain map from those.

I believe that after the possible license change there would not be any
difference between GPS track logs and other kind of contributions and they 
would all be covered by ODbL and contributor terms.


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk