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
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] Does this mean?.....
On 21 December 2010 10:59, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Also I believe that the following actions also entail little or no independent intellectual effort. 1) walking/riding/driving around with a gps turned on and collecting GPS traces. 2) Tracing roads from either GPS traces or any imagery. 3) Copying down street names from a street sign and then adding then to a traced road. 4) Noting and publishing the location of POIs. 5) etc... Therefore, does this also mean that any contributions to the OSM project attract no copyright and can be freely used to derive information from, without any attribution, if so desired? I really hope the answers to these two questions are yes, since it appeals to what I consider freedom of information. My reading of the case is that it would have no bearing on deciding whether copyright subsists in each individual's manual contributions to OSM. The rules to determine that aren't really addressed, and Australia has typically has had a very low threshold for whether copyright subsists in a work. My opinion is copyright likely would still subsist in each contribution that was any greater than the purely trivial, and that the legal landscape to determine this hasn't really altered. However, if copyright doesn't subsist in each individual contribution, then this case will have a real bearing on whether copyright subsists in the entire OSM database. I would say that if copyright doesn't subsist in the individual contributions, then the automated process that we have to compile the database from the contributions doesn't meet the requirements to have a new copyrightable work, and therefore copyright would not subsist in the OSM db in Australia. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Does this mean?.....
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, In what context? Obviously artistic photography is copyrightable. Also I believe that the following actions also entail little or no independent intellectual effort. 1) walking/riding/driving around with a gps turned on and collecting GPS traces. 2) Tracing roads from either GPS traces or any imagery. 3) Copying down street names from a street sign and then adding then to a traced road. 4) Noting and publishing the location of POIs. 5) etc... Who knows. Without a copyright lawyer, I don't think we'll get far by trying to interpret the results of this case. (I would point out that the case seemed to be about processing existing data, not producing it.) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Does this mean?.....
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. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
