Re: [talk-au] Does this mean?.....
On 21/12/2010 2:04 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Since taking a photo of something entails little or no "independent intellectual effort", On 21 December 2010 13:08, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: In what context? Obviously artistic photography is copyrightable. And even non-artistic photography... However, this case draws a real distinction between the human process of originality, and an automated process according to a set of rules. I've no doubt that if I take a photo out of an aeroplane window that copyright subsists in that photo. However, it would be interesting to see what the courts would now make of a satellite taking photos automatically according to a standard process of the earths surface. Ian. Having just completed my Certificate IV photography course, I can assure you that any photo taken for private purposes is immediately copyright to the photographer. Photos taken for commercial purposes are also copyright, but usually to the person/organisation that commissioned the work. Even then, the photographer retains "moral copyright", i.e., the right to be credited if the photo is published. It's all specifically covered in the Copyright Act. Satellite photos would probably be copyright to the organisation that commissioned the photos, because the Copyright Act makes no distinction as to what type of camera or how it is operated. Richard C. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
For example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.03275lon=151.13694zoom=17layers=M Along the edge of the bay/water there is land-- | --trees in water-- | -- water A BC In the changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6723657 I moved the edge of the water (which did cover both B and C) in towards the center of the bay, and made section B marsh. But I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do. Maybe it would be better if the natural=bay/water area included both B and C, and the boundary for B just laid on top of the B/C area. But since we use a proper mulitpolygon for doughnut geometries, just dumping B on top wouldn't look so nice What if B was tagged as marsh, C as water, and then add B and C to a multipolygon tagged as the bay? Or is how its mapped currently how it should be? Any thoughts? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Does this mean?.....
I wrote : And even non-artistic photography... [is copyrightable] However, this case draws a real distinction between the human process of originality, and an automated process according to a set of rules. I've no doubt that if I take a photo out of an aeroplane window that copyright subsists in that photo. However, it would be interesting to see what the courts would now make of a satellite taking photos automatically according to a standard process of the earths surface. Richard Colless fire...@ar.com.au wrote: Having just completed my Certificate IV photography course, congrats.. I can assure you that any photo taken for private purposes is immediately copyright to the photographer. Photos taken for commercial purposes are also copyright, I think this is perfectly settled and clear. Satellite photos would probably be copyright to the organisation that commissioned the photos, because the Copyright Act makes no distinction as to what type of camera or how it is operated. Have you read the case we are discussing? Even though the Copyright Act doesn't explicitly distinguish between these types of photos, the courts have found that there is an implied difference in the Copyright Act between an act of human originality and automatic process. So the courts have found that the Act does in fact make such a distinction. Of course it made this distinction on facts regarding building a database. That is to say that if non-copyrightable information is combined by an automated process, then copyright doesn't subsist in the resulting compilation. Given, however, that it has implied this distinction between human originality and automated processing into the Act, I maintain it would be interesting to see how it would rule on a photograph taken without any human originality or involvement, by an automated, repeated process. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: For example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.03275lon=151.13694zoom=17layers=M Along the edge of the bay/water there is land-- | --trees in water-- | -- water A B C In the changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6723657 I moved the edge of the water (which did cover both B and C) in towards the center of the bay, and made section B marsh. But I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do. Maybe it would be better if the natural=bay/water area included both B and C, and the boundary for B just laid on top of the B/C area. But since we use a proper mulitpolygon for doughnut geometries, just dumping B on top wouldn't look so nice What if B was tagged as marsh, C as water, and then add B and C to a multipolygon tagged as the bay? Or is how its mapped currently how it should be? Any thoughts? Interesting question - to be honest I'm finding it a bit hard to understand your exact situation (moved the edge of the water...in towards the centre of the bay?) But I don't know for sure what the coastline should represent, so I'd be interested to hear opinions on this too. I think a similar example is here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2lat=-38.298693lon=145.199326zoom=18 Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.03275lon=151.13694zoom=17layers=M Along the edge of the bay/water there is land-- | --trees in water-- | -- water A B C In the changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6723657 I moved the edge of the water (which did cover both B and C) in towards the center of the bay, and made section B marsh. But I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do. Maybe it would be better if the natural=bay/water area included both B and C, and the boundary for B just laid on top of the B/C area. But since we use a proper mulitpolygon for doughnut geometries, just dumping B on top wouldn't look so nice What if B was tagged as marsh, C as water, and then add B and C to a multipolygon tagged as the bay? Or is how its mapped currently how it should be? Any thoughts? Interesting question - to be honest I'm finding it a bit hard to understand your exact situation (moved the edge of the water...in towards the centre of the bay?) But I don't know for sure what the coastline should represent, so I'd be interested to hear opinions on this too. I think a similar example is here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2lat=-38.298693lon=145.199326zoom=18 Steve I usually map these as in the second example, ie coastline along the water to marsh/mangrove boundary then separate area for the marsh/mangroves. I'd also suggest that the treed area should be natural=wetland wetland=mangrove rather than natural=marsh. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
