Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
And as I said before I am 99.9% certain that this is not breach of copyright in the UK either. As I said before this is identical to the case where someone plans a route using an atlas then uploads their traces to OSM, using their own observations to tag the roads, not the atlas. (Apologies for top posting, it's my mail client) Nick "Dave F." Sent by: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org 01/10/2009 01:45 To Russ Nelson cc OSM Talk Subject Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Russ Nelson wrote: > Dave F. writes: > > I look for /indications /of rights of way on my OS map. Initially this > > is the only evidence I have. > > If I see it's not indicated in OSM I go & walk it. > > I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one who does this. > > > > Is this a breach of copyright? > > Not in the US. Not in any way, not at all. Copyright in the US > protects creative expression, not information. If something is a > representation of a fact, the creative elements of that representation > are copyrightable. The fact is not copyrightable. You are using the > OSM maps in a manner which is non-infringing under US law. > > Further, under US law, if there is only one way to express something, > you cannot claim a copyright on it, even if you can show that you > exercised creativity in creating it. > > Now, you *can* claim a copyright on a collection of facts, but the > copyright applies to the collection, not the individual facts. Your > creativity was applied to the choice of which facts to include in the > collection. > > Obviously you are in the UK making reference to a work under UK > copyright, so none of this applies to you. I merely put this here so > that people in the US understand that they CAN do what you are doing. > > Oh to live in in the land of the free. :-) Thanks for your reply. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
2009/10/1 Russ Nelson : > Obviously you are in the UK making reference to a work under UK > copyright, so none of this applies to you. I merely put this here so > that people in the US understand that they CAN do what you are doing. even when the servers are in the UK? Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Russ Nelson wrote: > Dave F. writes: > > I look for /indications /of rights of way on my OS map. Initially this > > is the only evidence I have. > > If I see it's not indicated in OSM I go & walk it. > > I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one who does this. > > > > Is this a breach of copyright? > > Not in the US. Not in any way, not at all. Copyright in the US > protects creative expression, not information. If something is a > representation of a fact, the creative elements of that representation > are copyrightable. The fact is not copyrightable. You are using the > OSM maps in a manner which is non-infringing under US law. > > Further, under US law, if there is only one way to express something, > you cannot claim a copyright on it, even if you can show that you > exercised creativity in creating it. > > Now, you *can* claim a copyright on a collection of facts, but the > copyright applies to the collection, not the individual facts. Your > creativity was applied to the choice of which facts to include in the > collection. > > Obviously you are in the UK making reference to a work under UK > copyright, so none of this applies to you. I merely put this here so > that people in the US understand that they CAN do what you are doing. > > Oh to live in in the land of the free. :-) Thanks for your reply. Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Dave F. writes: > I look for /indications /of rights of way on my OS map. Initially this > is the only evidence I have. > If I see it's not indicated in OSM I go & walk it. > I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one who does this. > > Is this a breach of copyright? Not in the US. Not in any way, not at all. Copyright in the US protects creative expression, not information. If something is a representation of a fact, the creative elements of that representation are copyrightable. The fact is not copyrightable. You are using the OSM maps in a manner which is non-infringing under US law. Further, under US law, if there is only one way to express something, you cannot claim a copyright on it, even if you can show that you exercised creativity in creating it. Now, you *can* claim a copyright on a collection of facts, but the copyright applies to the collection, not the individual facts. Your creativity was applied to the choice of which facts to include in the collection. Obviously you are in the UK making reference to a work under UK copyright, so none of this applies to you. I merely put this here so that people in the US understand that they CAN do what you are doing. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/29 : > >> 2009/9/29 : > >>> Classic! > >> > >> I always thought the americans bastardised the english language, but I > >> came to find out in recent years american english is an older form of > >> english and well yea, they're backwards :) > > > > Spent the day interviewing prospective medical students > > they were given a 'scenario' concerning something with no clear answer > > eg should that south african runner run as a man or a woman? > > then formulate an argument and argue the point > > you would have been successful! > > ROFL > > You mean, is a genetic defect in the same category as taking illicit > drugs or wearing a funny swim suit for an unfair advantage. > > Unless it was intentional genetic manipulation I doubt it, we as a > society will always try to improve records, partially through > selective breeding of sorts because putting elite althelets in close > quarters is more likely to result in them producing off spring that > have high sporting tendencies. Just because someone was born with a > particular set of genes that give them an edge isn't their fault. > > Having said all that elite sport is a big money drain and as unlikely > as it is it should be ditched because it does almost nothing to give > back to society, how many top sports clubs in Australia give decent > amounts of money to fund school sports, or better fund better > teachers, generally not very much I bet. > > Was that the sort of answer you were after? :) You would have 8 minutes to keep on talking in which time you have to show that you can see more two sides to the argument and can think widely about the topic I got to listen to 8 wishy-washy arguments on foreign doctors in Australia and 2 good ones Even being incredibly pushy like "as a prospective medical student, how do you view international medical graduates?" only got me one *they could take my job* -- Habit is habit, and not to be flung out of the window by any man, but coaxed down-stairs a step at a time. -- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Russ Nelson wrote: > > Lawds, I wish the English could speak English. Who decided it would > be a good idea to fork off American into a whole 'nother language? That would be Noah Webster. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
>Lawds, I wish the English could speak English. Who decided it would >be a good idea to fork off American into a whole 'nother language? Well if it's any consolation I seem to have learnt the American meaning of "public domain" before any English meaning ;-) Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
... Are you sure about the spelling of "... fork off American ..." - doesn't sound quite right but perhaps it's just my mid-Atlantic accent? Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] > Sent: 29 September 2009 02:16 > To: Russ Nelson > Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org; Richard Fairhurst > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? > > 2009/9/29 Russ Nelson : > > Richard Fairhurst writes: > > > Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > > > One council (West Sussex) referred to its data as > "public domain" > > > > when I last looked. I'd guess that's the same for all councils. > > > > > > Bear in mind that "public domain" meaning "free of > copyright" is a US term. > > > The traditional UK meaning is quite different. > > > > Lawds, I wish the English could speak English. Who decided > it would > > be a good idea to fork off American into a whole 'nother language? > > Actually American english is behind the times, it's an older > form that never kept up with the rest of the world :) > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Russ Nelson wrote: > Lawds, I wish the English could speak English. Who decided it would > be a good idea to fork off American into a whole 'nother language? > > Many believe the American version is closer to the original. We in the UK then went & added extra letters to certain words jut to show off. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
2009/9/29 Russ Nelson : > Richard Fairhurst writes: > > Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > > One council (West Sussex) referred to its data as "public domain" > > > when I last looked. I'd guess that's the same for all councils. > > > > Bear in mind that "public domain" meaning "free of copyright" is a US term. > > The traditional UK meaning is quite different. > > Lawds, I wish the English could speak English. Who decided it would > be a good idea to fork off American into a whole 'nother language? Actually American english is behind the times, it's an older form that never kept up with the rest of the world :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Richard Fairhurst writes: > Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > One council (West Sussex) referred to its data as "public domain" > > when I last looked. I'd guess that's the same for all councils. > > Bear in mind that "public domain" meaning "free of copyright" is a US term. > The traditional UK meaning is quite different. Lawds, I wish the English could speak English. Who decided it would be a good idea to fork off American into a whole 'nother language? -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
> > Coincidentally I have just had a meeting with someone from one of the > local councils who is interested in using OSM data for their online > services. I brought up this issue and he explicitly said that the > coordinates of the footpaths on the definitive map were derived from > Ordnance Survey data. So this seems to be a definitive statement that you > can't copy courses of paths from definitive maps. > > Nick > That applies to that Council. Someone else has already noted their council had paid surveyors to do the footpath survey so their data would not be so derived. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
... Except from definitive maps based on OS mapping that is more than 50 years old (see my earlier message) - and I suspect that quite a lot of it is. Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk] > Sent: 28 September 2009 14:23 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? > > >Bear in mind that "public domain" meaning "free of copyright" is a US > term. > >The traditional UK meaning is quite different. > > >In the UK, if you say "the map is now in the public domain", > that means > that > >the map is now available to the public - i.e. it's not solely an > >internal publication. It does not have any implications about > >copyright. Indeed, > the > >map may well still be copyrighted. > > Coincidentally I have just had a meeting with someone from > one of the local councils who is interested in using OSM data > for their online services. I brought up this issue and he > explicitly said that the coordinates of the footpaths on the > definitive map were derived from Ordnance Survey data. So > this seems to be a definitive statement that you can't copy > courses of paths from definitive maps. > > Nick > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
>Bear in mind that "public domain" meaning "free of copyright" is a US term. >The traditional UK meaning is quite different. >In the UK, if you say "the map is now in the public domain", that means that >the map is now available to the public - i.e. it's not solely an internal >publication. It does not have any implications about copyright. Indeed, the >map may well still be copyrighted. Coincidentally I have just had a meeting with someone from one of the local councils who is interested in using OSM data for their online services. I brought up this issue and he explicitly said that the coordinates of the footpaths on the definitive map were derived from Ordnance Survey data. So this seems to be a definitive statement that you can't copy courses of paths from definitive maps. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Nick Whitelegg wrote: > One council (West Sussex) referred to its data as "public domain" > when I last looked. I'd guess that's the same for all councils. Bear in mind that "public domain" meaning "free of copyright" is a US term. The traditional UK meaning is quite different. In the UK, if you say "the map is now in the public domain", that means that the map is now available to the public - i.e. it's not solely an internal publication. It does not have any implications about copyright. Indeed, the map may well still be copyrighted. Here's how the UK Government defines it: http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/europeandtrade/strategic-export-control/licensing-policy/ecofaqs/page46253.html#q1 "In the public domain means the information is made available without any restrictions, _other_ _than_ _copyright_, being placed on further dissemination. For instance, information you place on your website that anyone can download or that you publish in a sales brochure would be 'in the public domain'." (my emphasis) Of course, the usage is (as with so many things) changing, particularly in the IT field as a result of US influence. But don't for a moment think that a council official telling you something is "in the public domain" means you can upload it to OSM. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Breach-of-Copyright--tp25611101p25644031.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
David Earl wrote: > On 28/09/2009 08:53, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > >>> Incidentally, as well as the possible OS contamination, the Council will >>> itself have database and content copyright in the data, so explicit >>> permission would be needed from them to incorporate and release it under >>> our CCBySA license. In obtaining that permission you could ask them to >>> assert that the data was collected without reference to OS or other >>> copyright base maps. >>> >> One council (West Sussex) referred to its data as "public domain" when I >> last looked. I'd guess that's the same for all councils. >> > > Well, their website has a clear copyright notice and the legal page says > you need to contact them to use any data. I imagine many councils would > be quite happy to give permission, but the default position is that > copyright persists in their data. > +1 > David > Most people, including people in councils, have a poor understanding of copyright. Council-produced, published documents are automatically Crown Copyright, which extends for fifty years. Only then are they public-domain. The council may choose to permit its use for OSM but you would need written permission to license it's use to fit with CC-by-SA and ODbL so we can show the Crown Copyright does not apply. We must be scrupulous about this to maintain a clean database. Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
On 28/09/2009 08:53, Nick Whitelegg wrote: >> Incidentally, as well as the possible OS contamination, the Council will >> itself have database and content copyright in the data, so explicit >> permission would be needed from them to incorporate and release it under >> our CCBySA license. In obtaining that permission you could ask them to >> assert that the data was collected without reference to OS or other >> copyright base maps. > > One council (West Sussex) referred to its data as "public domain" when I > last looked. I'd guess that's the same for all councils. Well, their website has a clear copyright notice and the legal page says you need to contact them to use any data. I imagine many councils would be quite happy to give permission, but the default position is that copyright persists in their data. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
>Incidentally, as well as the possible OS contamination, the Council will >itself have database and content copyright in the data, so explicit >permission would be needed from them to incorporate and release it under >our CCBySA license. In obtaining that permission you could ask them to >assert that the data was collected without reference to OS or other >copyright base maps. One council (West Sussex) referred to its data as "public domain" when I last looked. I'd guess that's the same for all councils. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Mike Harris wrote: > Statements are almost or completely empty for hundreds of paths - sometimes > not a single path in a parish has a meaningful Definitive Statement! This > is an illegal state of affairs but that is simply the case and cannot now > be changed (other than by a Definitive Map Modification Order - of which, > with current resources, you are unlikely to see more than a few dozen (at > most) per year per county. Here is an opportunity. You need to be approaching your councillors, explaining that you want to map these paths on OSM, and with a bit of co-operation from the council, will be successful and write up the DMMOs as well as provide the OSM map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Mike Harris wrote: > The second issue is that the text uses OS GRs throughout - so what is the > status as a derivative work? it mentions grid references but gives enough detail from the road names, places of gates and number of metres to be walked that you could find that route without the grid references. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Still the Council's budget though - so don't hold your breath - my lot can only afford a couple of cheap units although they are trying to get the funds for a top-of-the-range ±1m jobby! Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] > Sent: 25 September 2009 18:29 > Cc: 'OSM Talk' > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? > > Mike Harris wrote: > > There may be a misunderstanding here - the Definitive Map > is a legal > > document and was (in almost all cases produced a long time ago - > > interesting thought in passing - if it is 50 years old > would it be out > > of copyright! The initiating legislation is the National Parks and > > Access to the Countryside Act 1949 so some could be almost > that old). > > Almost all Definitive Maps are years earlier than GPS. The nice men > > from the council with cheap yellow GPS units (they can't usually > > afford good ones) are surveying the paths with respect to the > > definitive map to build a database on path condition to > assist their > > statutory duties of maintenance etc. and to cover their > backsides in > > case of legal action against them e.g if someone gets hurt > on a path - > > this wonderful litigious modern world! > > > > Very few Councils indeed (exceptions may be one or two major cities > > who were initially exempt) are still producing definitive > maps - just > > amending them from time to time in respect of a particular path. > > > > Mike Harris > Some cities, including mine, have never had one, but must > have had a kick up the ass, because last year the were signs > tied to lampposts asking the public if, when & how they used > these various paths. > They were produced for the surrounding country side, and are > being updated, but not for the urban city centre. > > The job of surveying was tendered out to a (hopefully) > professional surveying company so hopefully they're top of > the range yellow units! > > Cheers > Dave F. > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Lucky you - I have never seen a Definitive Statement that is that detailed - in fact it is not a Definitive Statement (upon which the original Definitive Map will have been based)! It is the text of a Definitive Map Modification Order making a specific amendment to a specific path or paths (in this case footpaths 6 and 26 in the parish of Dullingham). The DS is likely to be decades old - a DMMO is current. The second issue is that the text uses OS GRs throughout - so what is the status as a derivative work? Mike Harris _ From: Barnett, Phillip [mailto:phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk] Sent: 25 September 2009 18:24 To: 'Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)'; 'Dave F.' Cc: 'OSM Talk' Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? +1 The 'definitive statement' is the only thing from the local authority that we can really use, but that is surprisingly detailed. Here's an example of a path modification in Cambridgeshire "The above Order made on 30 May 2006, if confirmed as made, will modify the Definitive Map and Statement for the area by adding to them two public footpaths. The first (No. 26) starts on the southern side of Stetchworth Road, passes through a field gate at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference TL6340 5783 (point A) and runs as a grassed path in a southerly direction on the eastern side of a mature hedge for approximately 283m to OS GR TL6344 5755 (point B), then turns to run in a westerly direction for approximately 220m as a grassed path on the southern side of a ditch and hedge to join Public Footpath No.6, Dullingham through a field gate at OS GR TL6323 5752 (point C). The width is 2m from A-B and 1m from B-C. The second (No. 27) starts at a point on Public Footpath No.26 Dullingham at OS GR TL6344 5755 (point B), and runs through a field gate, continuing as a grass path in an easterly, southerly and then easterly direction for approximately 320m around the western and southern edges of the properties at Dullingham Ley to join Ley Road at OS GR TL6370 5749 (point D). The width is 1m. Phillip <http://www.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif> PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? _ From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) Sent: 25 September 2009 16:16 To: 'Dave F.' Cc: 'OSM Talk' Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? It does seem that what is needed here is not the definitive map but rather the survey data the two surveyors gathered. As others have said if that data has been overlain onto an OS map there is no way of knowing what is derived and what is not. Not unless the bod from the council is prepared to stick their neck out and confirm otherwise. As a result the OS would take issue because their data forms part of the definitive map. Cheers Andy _ From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Dave F. Sent: 25 September 2009 3:16 PM Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it is a very unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that scrupulously careful... Well... not every detail, no, but there was a report in the local newspaper: "Two surveyors will be walking virtually every one of the 560 miles of footpath in the area." And also in the Council produced pamphlet where two people were shown holding their very nice big yellow GPS units. Isn't every council having to do the same to produce their Definitive Maps? The reason of course is that they have a license to do what they like with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether they derive things from it (well at least until they try and overlay that data on a google map and get nastygrams from the OS). Tom Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the p
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Jon makes a good point about the Definitive Statement - at least in principle - indeed it is the process I described in an earlier message to this thread describing how the Definitive Maps were originally created. There is a big 'but' though - from my own experience the Definitive Statements are almost or completely empty for hundreds of paths - sometimes not a single path in a parish has a meaningful Definitive Statement! This is an illegal state of affairs but that is simply the case and cannot now be changed (other than by a Definitive Map Modification Order - of which, with current resources, you are unlikely to see more than a few dozen (at most) per year per county. Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: Jon Stockill [mailto:li...@stockill.net] > Sent: 25 September 2009 15:54 > To: OSM Talk > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? > > Tom Hughes wrote: > > On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: > > > >> The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an > OS underlay, > >> but the information laid on top is compiled from Council > gathered info. > >> eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to > >> produce the definitive maps. > > > > Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was > > gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it > is a very > > unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that > > scrupulously careful... > > > > The reason of course is that they have a license to do what > they like > > with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether > they derive > > things from it (well at least until they try and overlay > that data on > > a google map and get nastygrams from the OS). > > The simplest solution would be to work from the definitive > statement, rather than the definitive map, except where the > statement includes OS grid references. > > Jon > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Mike Harris wrote: > There may be a misunderstanding here - the Definitive Map is a legal > document and was (in almost all cases produced a long time ago - > interesting thought in passing - if it is 50 years old would it be out > of copyright! The initiating legislation is the National Parks and > Access to the Countryside Act 1949 so some could be almost that old). > Almost all Definitive Maps are years earlier than GPS. The nice men > from the council with cheap yellow GPS units (they can't usually > afford good ones) are surveying the paths with respect to the > definitive map to build a database on path condition to assist their > statutory duties of maintenance etc. and to cover their backsides in > case of legal action against them e.g if someone gets hurt on a path - > this wonderful litigious modern world! > > Very few Councils indeed (exceptions may be one or two major cities > who were initially exempt) are still producing definitive maps - just > amending them from time to time in respect of a particular path. > > Mike Harris Some cities, including mine, have never had one, but must have had a kick up the ass, because last year the were signs tied to lampposts asking the public if, when & how they used these various paths. They were produced for the surrounding country side, and are being updated, but not for the urban city centre. The job of surveying was tendered out to a (hopefully) professional surveying company so hopefully they're top of the range yellow units! Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
+1 The 'definitive statement' is the only thing from the local authority that we can really use, but that is surprisingly detailed. Here's an example of a path modification in Cambridgeshire "The above Order made on 30 May 2006, if confirmed as made, will modify the Definitive Map and Statement for the area by adding to them two public footpaths. The first (No. 26) starts on the southern side of Stetchworth Road, passes through a field gate at Ordnance Survey Grid Reference TL6340 5783 (point A) and runs as a grassed path in a southerly direction on the eastern side of a mature hedge for approximately 283m to OS GR TL6344 5755 (point B), then turns to run in a westerly direction for approximately 220m as a grassed path on the southern side of a ditch and hedge to join Public Footpath No.6, Dullingham through a field gate at OS GR TL6323 5752 (point C). The width is 2m from A-B and 1m from B-C. The second (No. 27) starts at a point on Public Footpath No.26 Dullingham at OS GR TL6344 5755 (point B), and runs through a field gate, continuing as a grass path in an easterly, southerly and then easterly direction for approximately 320m around the western and southern edges of the properties at Dullingham Ley to join Ley Road at OS GR TL6370 5749 (point D). The width is 1m. Phillip [http://www.itn.co.uk/images/ITN_Master_blue.gif] PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk WWW.ITN.CO.UK<http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK> P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) Sent: 25 September 2009 16:16 To: 'Dave F.' Cc: 'OSM Talk' Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? It does seem that what is needed here is not the definitive map but rather the survey data the two surveyors gathered. As others have said if that data has been overlain onto an OS map there is no way of knowing what is derived and what is not. Not unless the bod from the council is prepared to stick their neck out and confirm otherwise. As a result the OS would take issue because their data forms part of the definitive map. Cheers Andy From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Dave F. Sent: 25 September 2009 3:16 PM Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it is a very unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that scrupulously careful... Well... not every detail, no, but there was a report in the local newspaper: "Two surveyors will be walking virtually every one of the 560 miles of footpath in the area." And also in the Council produced pamphlet where two people were shown holding their very nice big yellow GPS units. Isn't every council having to do the same to produce their Definitive Maps? The reason of course is that they have a license to do what they like with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether they derive things from it (well at least until they try and overlay that data on a google map and get nastygrams from the OS). Tom Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
There may be a misunderstanding here - the Definitive Map is a legal document and was (in almost all cases produced a long time ago - interesting thought in passing - if it is 50 years old would it be out of copyright! The initiating legislation is the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 so some could be almost that old). Almost all Definitive Maps are years earlier than GPS. The nice men from the council with cheap yellow GPS units (they can't usually afford good ones) are surveying the paths with respect to the definitive map to build a database on path condition to assist their statutory duties of maintenance etc. and to cover their backsides in case of legal action against them e.g if someone gets hurt on a path - this wonderful litigious modern world! Very few Councils indeed (exceptions may be one or two major cities who were initially exempt) are still producing definitive maps - just amending them from time to time in respect of a particular path. Mike Harris _ From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] Sent: 25 September 2009 15:16 Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it is a very unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that scrupulously careful... Well... not every detail, no, but there was a report in the local newspaper: "Two surveyors will be walking virtually every one of the 560 miles of footpath in the area." And also in the Council produced pamphlet where two people were shown holding their very nice big yellow GPS units. Isn't every council having to do the same to produce their Definitive Maps? The reason of course is that they have a license to do what they like with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether they derive things from it (well at least until they try and overlay that data on a google map and get nastygrams from the OS). Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Dave I don't think you can "transfer" the paths from the definitive map - they get there by being a GIS layer superimposed on and rectified to the OS base mapping even though they may have been separately surveyed (which I rather doubt). The dates of most original definitive maps are such that GPS did not exist and they were drawn by clerks onto OS base mapping on the basis of written descriptions in surveyors' notebooks etc. Again _ I think you are free to use the reference numbers and status descriptions from the definitive map but not the path traces. If I am wrong I have been wasting my time walking a 1000 km a year along rights of way with a GPS in my sticky little hand! Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] > Sent: 25 September 2009 14:30 > To: Tom Hughes > Cc: OSM Talk > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? > > Tom Hughes wrote: > > On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: > > > >> I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local > >> council. He intimated that the data relating to public > rights of way, > >> and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local > Council. When > >> they make a legal order to record a public right of way > they send a > >> copy of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of > >> way onto their own maps. > > > > In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the > council has > > referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right > of way. If > > they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and > infected by > > their copyright etc. > > > > Tom > > > The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS > underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from > Council gathered info. > eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed > to produce the definitive maps. > It would come down to what you, I, council & OS mean by > 'define' I suppose. > > This is the copyright at the bottom: > "Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the > permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery > Office © Crown Copyright. > Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may > lead to prosecution or civil proceedings." > > Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is > significant or not. > > If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS > underlay map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference? > > Cheers > Dave F. > > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
If your HA supplies you with a copy of e.g. the definitive map (physical or electronic) you will almost certainly find that it is watermarked with their logo (and possibly with an OS licence statement). So I don't think we can use the base mapping but we can use the information about the rights of way. Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] > Sent: 25 September 2009 13:29 > To: Dave F. > Cc: OSM Talk > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? > > 2009/9/25 Dave F. : > > > Is this a breach of copyright? > > I've already been in a similar discussion about using google > maps to plan routes, some suggest this is breach of > copyright, but then anyone using a map for any reason would > be in breach of copyright so I doubt this is true, copying > from a map directly is different than just using a map to > work out where you plan to go. > > > I'm aware he put a couple of caveats in the message such as > "I suspect" & "I would imagine". > > I have no idea and I'm not a lawyer but I suspect OS has a > right to publish and copying from their maps would be in > breach of copyright, getting a copy from the local council on > the other hand with permission to copy would be a different matter. > > What matters most is what you copied from, GPS trace or > someone else's map, I would genuinely be surprised if you > could be in breach of copyright for just looking at a map or > using information for journey planning based on a map. > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
I do not work FOR a Highway Authority but I do work very closely WITH one. My HA's view is much as Dave F reports - there is no copyright for the rights of way (we the great unwashed public own them) and the data on definitive maps and their electronic equivalents held or published by the HA is free to use BUT the HA licenses the base mapping from the OS so we have to be careful not to use that even in a derivative fashion. My practical interpretation of this is that we still have to do the work on the ground with GPS etc. to find where a path IS on the surface of the planet - but we are free to add tags for its legal status, reference number etc. as this is public domain material. In practice there are lots of errors in the OS mapping for rights of way (and not merely Easter Eggs) and there is no substitute for doing the mapping itself the hard way with the trusty handheld GPS and a pair of muddy boots! It is indeed the HA who provide the PRoW data to the OS - who - some time in the following decade or so - might get round to putting it onto their maps. (I have examples around here where changes properly notified to the OS are still missing after 10 years). So as long as the phrase "data of the paths" means their status, numbering etc. but not their position or shape on the ground then we should be in the clear according to my contacts (some of whom are HA lawyers). Mike Harris > -Original Message- > From: Dave F. [mailto:dave...@madasafish.com] > Sent: 25 September 2009 13:16 > To: OSM Talk > Subject: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? > > This is a continuation of the thread [OSM-talk] Field > boundaries, specifically the message on the 25th at 10:42 I > started a new one because it would stray from the original topic. > > Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > "Just to check, and apologies if I'm telling you the complete > obvious: make sure that the OS 1:25000 map is not the only > evidence you have of which side of the hedge the path goes. > Make sure there's some evidence on the ground as well e.g. a > way marker. > > Otherwise if you use that to decide where the path goes it's > probably breach of copyright." > > Hi Nick > > You bring up a point that I think needs expanding on for > clarification. > I decide where I'm going to go for a walk by looking at a > combination of my OS and OSM maps. > I look for /indications /of rights of way on my OS map. > Initially this is the only evidence I have. > If I see it's not indicated in OSM I go & walk it. > I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one who does this. > > Is this a breach of copyright? > > On a second related point: > Who has the copyright for the rights of way information? > My understanding, & please correct me if I'm wrong, is that > it's not OS. > > I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my > local council. He intimated that the data relating to public > rights of way, and its associated copyright, would belong to > the Local Council. When they make a legal order to record a > public right of way they send a copy of the order to the OS > who then copy the line of the right of way onto their own maps. > > He provided me with a map that the council created of legally > recorded public rights of way for the city, & again intimated > that I was free to copy the data of the paths to OSM. > > Is he correct? > I'm aware he put a couple of caveats in the message such as > "I suspect" & "I would imagine". > > Cheers > Dave F. > > > > > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Chris Hill wrote: >Sent: 25 September 2009 4:02 PM >To: OSM Talk >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? > >Dave F. wrote: >> Chris Hill wrote: >> >>> Dave F. wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Tom Hughes wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local >>>>>> council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, >>>>>> and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When >>>>>> they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a >copy >>>>>> of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way >onto >>>>>> their own maps. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council has >>>>> referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way. If >>>>> they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and infected by >>>>> their copyright etc. >>>>> >>>>> Tom >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, >>>> but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. >>>> eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce >>>> the definitive maps. >>>> It would come down to what you, I, council & OS mean by 'define' I >suppose. >>>> >>>> This is the copyright at the bottom: >>>> "Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the >>>> Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office C Crown Copyright. >>>> Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to >>>> prosecution or civil proceedings." >>>> >>>> Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is significant >>>> or not. >>>> >>>> If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS underlay >>>> map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference? >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Dave F. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The copyright statement at the bottom is all that counts. OS will claim >>> it is a derivative work, so, they could claim that if you copy from it >>> into OSM you will be in breach their copyright. The tracks only gain >>> context because they are on an OS map. The only way to settle who is in >>> the wrong is to go to court, which OSM cannot afford. I don't like the >>> wide-ranging claims that the OS make about derivative works but I don't >>> think we can afford to ignore them. >>> >>> Why not walk or cycle the routes with a GPS, collect the tracks and >>> photos, enjoy some time in the countryside, add the paths to the map >>> with a clear conscience and metaphorically thumb your nose at the OS? >>> >>> >> I do Chris, I do. >> However, if I can find a way to /legally/ import data I don't see a >> problem. Take a look at Transit Talk for examples of mass data import >> (Naptan). It saves hell of a lot of time! >> >I know all about NaPTAN - I am currently visiting every one of the 1299 >bus stops in Hull to check that the NaPTAN import is correct, and >finding a significant number that are not. NaPTAN brings us benefits, >but since every stop needs checking, time saving might not be one of >them. Most imports bring similar issues of checking. Yes, in reality NaPTAN is not a very good import for OSM. Yes it puts lots of bus stops on the map but in reality I would say less than 50% are in the reasonably correct locations (ie +/- 10m or so). Having said that we do get the benefit of other data that takes a long time to gather and enter, such as reference data for each stop. It's also encouraged me to get out and map more bus stops, which can't be a bad thing. So overall I'm positive about the NaPTAN import, but not as positive as I thought I would be when we heard they were making the dataset available to us. Cheers Andy > >I don't want the work done in your area jeopardized by a letter from >OS's lawyers. > > >Cheers, Chris > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
It does seem that what is needed here is not the definitive map but rather the survey data the two surveyors gathered. As others have said if that data has been overlain onto an OS map there is no way of knowing what is derived and what is not. Not unless the bod from the council is prepared to stick their neck out and confirm otherwise. As a result the OS would take issue because their data forms part of the definitive map. Cheers Andy _ From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Dave F. Sent: 25 September 2009 3:16 PM Cc: OSM Talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it is a very unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that scrupulously careful... Well... not every detail, no, but there was a report in the local newspaper: "Two surveyors will be walking virtually every one of the 560 miles of footpath in the area." And also in the Council produced pamphlet where two people were shown holding their very nice big yellow GPS units. Isn't every council having to do the same to produce their Definitive Maps? The reason of course is that they have a license to do what they like with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether they derive things from it (well at least until they try and overlay that data on a google map and get nastygrams from the OS). Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Chris Hill wrote: >Sent: 25 September 2009 3:08 PM >To: OSM Talk >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright? > >Dave F. wrote: >> Tom Hughes wrote: >> >>> On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local >>>> council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, >>>> and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When >>>> they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a >copy >>>> of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto >>>> their own maps. >>>> >>> In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council has >>> referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way. If >>> they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and infected by >>> their copyright etc. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >> The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, >> but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. >> eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce >> the definitive maps. >> It would come down to what you, I, council & OS mean by 'define' I >suppose. >> >> This is the copyright at the bottom: >> "Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the >> Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office C Crown Copyright. >> Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to >> prosecution or civil proceedings." >> >> Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is significant >> or not. >> >> If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS underlay >> map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference? >> >> Cheers >> Dave F. >> >> >The copyright statement at the bottom is all that counts. OS will claim >it is a derivative work, so, they could claim that if you copy from it >into OSM you will be in breach their copyright. The tracks only gain >context because they are on an OS map. The only way to settle who is in >the wrong is to go to court, which OSM cannot afford. I don't like the >wide-ranging claims that the OS make about derivative works but I don't >think we can afford to ignore them. > >Why not walk or cycle the routes with a GPS, collect the tracks and >photos, enjoy some time in the countryside, add the paths to the map >with a clear conscience and metaphorically thumb your nose at the OS? +1 Cheers Andy > >Cheers, Chris > >___ >talk mailing list >talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Dave F. wrote: > Chris Hill wrote: > >> Dave F. wrote: >> >> >>> Tom Hughes wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: > I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local > council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, > and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When > they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a copy > of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto > their own maps. > > > In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council has referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way. If they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and infected by their copyright etc. Tom >>> The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, >>> but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. >>> eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce >>> the definitive maps. >>> It would come down to what you, I, council & OS mean by 'define' I suppose. >>> >>> This is the copyright at the bottom: >>> "Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the >>> Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. >>> Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to >>> prosecution or civil proceedings." >>> >>> Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is significant >>> or not. >>> >>> If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS underlay >>> map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Dave F. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> The copyright statement at the bottom is all that counts. OS will claim >> it is a derivative work, so, they could claim that if you copy from it >> into OSM you will be in breach their copyright. The tracks only gain >> context because they are on an OS map. The only way to settle who is in >> the wrong is to go to court, which OSM cannot afford. I don't like the >> wide-ranging claims that the OS make about derivative works but I don't >> think we can afford to ignore them. >> >> Why not walk or cycle the routes with a GPS, collect the tracks and >> photos, enjoy some time in the countryside, add the paths to the map >> with a clear conscience and metaphorically thumb your nose at the OS? >> >> > I do Chris, I do. > However, if I can find a way to /legally/ import data I don't see a > problem. Take a look at Transit Talk for examples of mass data import > (Naptan). It saves hell of a lot of time! > I know all about NaPTAN - I am currently visiting every one of the 1299 bus stops in Hull to check that the NaPTAN import is correct, and finding a significant number that are not. NaPTAN brings us benefits, but since every stop needs checking, time saving might not be one of them. Most imports bring similar issues of checking. I don't want the work done in your area jeopardized by a letter from OS's lawyers. Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
On 25/09/2009 14:30, Dave F. wrote: > I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local > council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, > and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When > they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a copy > of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto > their own maps. Incidentally, as well as the possible OS contamination, the Council will itself have database and content copyright in the data, so explicit permission would be needed from them to incorporate and release it under our CCBySA license. In obtaining that permission you could ask them to assert that the data was collected without reference to OS or other copyright base maps. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Tom Hughes wrote: > On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: > >> The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, >> but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. >> eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce >> the definitive maps. > > Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was gathered > from first principles like that? If it was then it is a very unusual bit > of local council mapping as they are not generally that scrupulously > careful... > > The reason of course is that they have a license to do what they like > with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether they derive > things from it (well at least until they try and overlay that data on a > google map and get nastygrams from the OS). The simplest solution would be to work from the definitive statement, rather than the definitive map, except where the statement includes OS grid references. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
On 25 Sep 2009, at 15:27, Dave F. wrote: Chris Hill wrote: Dave F. wrote: Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a copy of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto their own maps. In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council has referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way. If they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and infected by their copyright etc. Tom The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. It would come down to what you, I, council & OS mean by 'define' I suppose. This is the copyright at the bottom: "Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings." Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is significant or not. If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS underlay map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference? Cheers Dave F. The copyright statement at the bottom is all that counts. OS will claim it is a derivative work, so, they could claim that if you copy from it into OSM you will be in breach their copyright. The tracks only gain context because they are on an OS map. The only way to settle who is in the wrong is to go to court, which OSM cannot afford. I don't like the wide-ranging claims that the OS make about derivative works but I don't think we can afford to ignore them. Why not walk or cycle the routes with a GPS, collect the tracks and photos, enjoy some time in the countryside, add the paths to the map with a clear conscience and metaphorically thumb your nose at the OS? I do Chris, I do. However, if I can find a way to /legally/ import data I don't see a problem. Take a look at Transit Talk for examples of mass data import (Naptan). It saves hell of a lot of time! Naptan is a specialist data set of points which is easy to import without huge conflicts or crap and inconsistent routing like with the TIGER data. In general large bulk imports are a bad thing and should be avoided. The amount of time that you spend sorting out legalities, making sure the scripts are working and then fixing the potentially broken imported data, you could have been out there and mapped it properly from first principles. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
>You bring up a point that I think needs expanding on for clarification. >I decide where I'm going to go for a walk by looking at a combination of >my OS and OSM maps. >I look for /indications /of rights of way on my OS map. Initially this >is the only evidence I have. >If I see it's not indicated in OSM I go & walk it. >I'm pretty certain I'm not the only one who does this. Hi Dave, I'm almost certain this is OK - it's no difference to route planning using a copyrighted road atlas. What I meant was using the OS map to work out which side of a hedge the path went, and orientating the path and the hedge on OSM accordingly - sorry, I thought that's what you meant. Apologies for any confusion, and if I've unnecessarily worried you! Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Chris Hill wrote: > Dave F. wrote: > >> Tom Hughes wrote: >> >> >>> On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: >>> >>> >>> I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a copy of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto their own maps. >>> In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council has >>> referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way. If >>> they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and infected by >>> their copyright etc. >>> >>> Tom >>> >>> >>> >> The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, >> but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. >> eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce >> the definitive maps. >> It would come down to what you, I, council & OS mean by 'define' I suppose. >> >> This is the copyright at the bottom: >> "Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the >> Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. >> Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to >> prosecution or civil proceedings." >> >> Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is significant >> or not. >> >> If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS underlay >> map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference? >> >> Cheers >> Dave F. >> >> >> > The copyright statement at the bottom is all that counts. OS will claim > it is a derivative work, so, they could claim that if you copy from it > into OSM you will be in breach their copyright. The tracks only gain > context because they are on an OS map. The only way to settle who is in > the wrong is to go to court, which OSM cannot afford. I don't like the > wide-ranging claims that the OS make about derivative works but I don't > think we can afford to ignore them. > > Why not walk or cycle the routes with a GPS, collect the tracks and > photos, enjoy some time in the countryside, add the paths to the map > with a clear conscience and metaphorically thumb your nose at the OS? > I do Chris, I do. However, if I can find a way to /legally/ import data I don't see a problem. Take a look at Transit Talk for examples of mass data import (Naptan). It saves hell of a lot of time! > Cheers, Chris > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Tom Hughes wrote: On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it is a very unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that scrupulously careful... Well... not /every /detail, no, but there was a report in the local newspaper: "Two surveyors will be walking virtually every one of the 560 miles of footpath in the area." And also in the Council produced pamphlet where two people were shown holding their very nice big yellow GPS units. Isn't every council having to do the same to produce their Definitive Maps? The reason of course is that they have a license to do what they like with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether they derive things from it (well at least until they try and overlay that data on a google map and get nastygrams from the OS). Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
> What matters most is what you copied from, GPS trace or someone > else's > map, I would genuinely be surprised if you could be in breach > of > copyright for just looking at a map or using information for > journey > planning based on a map. What was the rule of thumb at university? One source = copying, two sources = research? Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Dave F. wrote: > Tom Hughes wrote: > >> On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: >> >> >>> I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local >>> council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, >>> and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When >>> they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a copy >>> of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto >>> their own maps. >>> >> In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council has >> referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way. If >> they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and infected by >> their copyright etc. >> >> Tom >> >> > The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, > but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. > eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce > the definitive maps. > It would come down to what you, I, council & OS mean by 'define' I suppose. > > This is the copyright at the bottom: > "Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the > Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. > Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to > prosecution or civil proceedings." > > Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is significant > or not. > > If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS underlay > map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference? > > Cheers > Dave F. > > The copyright statement at the bottom is all that counts. OS will claim it is a derivative work, so, they could claim that if you copy from it into OSM you will be in breach their copyright. The tracks only gain context because they are on an OS map. The only way to settle who is in the wrong is to go to court, which OSM cannot afford. I don't like the wide-ranging claims that the OS make about derivative works but I don't think we can afford to ignore them. Why not walk or cycle the routes with a GPS, collect the tracks and photos, enjoy some time in the countryside, add the paths to the map with a clear conscience and metaphorically thumb your nose at the OS? Cheers, Chris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
On 25/09/09 14:30, Dave F. wrote: > The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, > but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. > eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce > the definitive maps. Do you know for absolute certainty that every single detail was gathered from first principles like that? If it was then it is a very unusual bit of local council mapping as they are not generally that scrupulously careful... The reason of course is that they have a license to do what they like with OS data so it largely doesn't matter to them whether they derive things from it (well at least until they try and overlay that data on a google map and get nastygrams from the OS). Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
Tom Hughes wrote: > On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: > >> I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local >> council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, >> and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When >> they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a copy >> of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto >> their own maps. > > In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council has > referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way. If > they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and infected by > their copyright etc. > > Tom > The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce the definitive maps. It would come down to what you, I, council & OS mean by 'define' I suppose. This is the copyright at the bottom: "Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings." Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is significant or not. If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS underlay map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference? Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: > I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local > council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, > and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When > they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a copy > of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto > their own maps. In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council has referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way. If they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and infected by their copyright etc. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Breach of Copyright?
2009/9/25 Dave F. : > Is this a breach of copyright? I've already been in a similar discussion about using google maps to plan routes, some suggest this is breach of copyright, but then anyone using a map for any reason would be in breach of copyright so I doubt this is true, copying from a map directly is different than just using a map to work out where you plan to go. > I'm aware he put a couple of caveats in the message such as "I suspect" & "I > would imagine". I have no idea and I'm not a lawyer but I suspect OS has a right to publish and copying from their maps would be in breach of copyright, getting a copy from the local council on the other hand with permission to copy would be a different matter. What matters most is what you copied from, GPS trace or someone else's map, I would genuinely be surprised if you could be in breach of copyright for just looking at a map or using information for journey planning based on a map. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
