Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)

[Tom Lee]

>
> I mean, nobody cares about a single on-the-fly geocoding result (this
> easily falls under the "substantial" guideline) but if you repeatedly
> query an ODbL database with the aim of retrieving from it, say, a
> million lat-lon pairs to store in your own database, then how in the
> world could this new database ever be *not* a derivative? Even if you
> were to define a single geocoding result as a produced work, combining a
> large number of them in a database would still get you a derived
> database again.


Can't the same argument apply to tiles? If you used tiles to recreate the
OSM database (say, by tracing road geometry or by OCRing feature names) and
then republishing under a different license, you would clearly be violating
the ODbL.

It seems as though the same approach can apply to geocoding: locate
features to your heart's content, but if you use the results to create a
general purpose geographic database that substitutes for/competes with OSM,
you'll be in violation of the license.


On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 09/23/2015 01:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
> > This could be well done within the confines of the ODbL by endorsing the
> > "Geocoding is Produced Work"
> > guideline
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-July/007900.html
>
> Frankly, even if I was of the opinion that it would be desirable for the
> ODbL to not apply to geocoding, I don't think that "Geocoding is
> Produced Work" could ever fly, legally, at least in countries that have
> a sui generis database law.
>
> I mean, nobody cares about a single on-the-fly geocoding result (this
> easily falls under the "substantial" guideline) but if you repeatedly
> query an ODbL database with the aim of retrieving from it, say, a
> million lat-lon pairs to store in your own database, then how in the
> world could this new database ever be *not* a derivative? Even if you
> were to define a single geocoding result as a produced work, combining a
> large number of them in a database would still get you a derived
> database again.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)

[Tom Lee]

>
> why wouldn't you want to provide OSM with a list of addresses that you
> tried to geo-code (successfully and non-successfully)


To use an extreme but hopefully illustrative example, consider the queries
used to create the thematic map on this page:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/09/men-killing-women-domesti_n_5927140.html

I'm sure you can imagine similar scenarios related to sales leads,
potential hires, the healthcare industry or other forms of geographic
information that are sensitive for personal or professional reasons.

More generally, geocoding services that produce a product that has ongoing
licensing obligations--e.g. the user must attend to how the result
intermingles with their other data--will always be a hard sell. I realize
that this may not be of much concern to everyone here, but I do think that
more use of OSM for geocoding will spur improvements in various classes of
under-mapped data (addresses, most obviously).

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:01 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

>
>
> Am 23.09.2015 um 01:26 schrieb Alex Barth:
> > ..
> >
> > The Fairhurst Doctrine won't get us all the way on geocoding. It still
> > leaves open what happens in scenarios where elements of the same kind
> > in third party databases are geocoded with OSM data and others with
> > third party data. This is a highly relevant scenario as OSM data
> > particularly for geocoding (addresses, POIs) is usually not complete
> > enough. The ability to use OSM for geocoding and "backfill" it with
> > (non-license-compatible) third party data is exactly what would would
> > make a gradual adoption of OSM possible.
> >
> > .
>
> This is obviously off topic as it has little to do with comments and
> input on the proposed guideline (and the proposed guideline has nothing
> directly to do with geo-coding), however I'm curious: why wouldn't you
> want to provide OSM with a list of addresses that you tried to geo-code
> (successfully and non-successfully), for example as proposed in:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Failover_Issue_and_Publishing_Derived_Datasets
>
> Simon
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 09/23/2015 01:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote:
> This could be well done within the confines of the ODbL by endorsing the
> "Geocoding is Produced Work"
> guideline 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-July/007900.html

Frankly, even if I was of the opinion that it would be desirable for the
ODbL to not apply to geocoding, I don't think that "Geocoding is
Produced Work" could ever fly, legally, at least in countries that have
a sui generis database law.

I mean, nobody cares about a single on-the-fly geocoding result (this
easily falls under the "substantial" guideline) but if you repeatedly
query an ODbL database with the aim of retrieving from it, say, a
million lat-lon pairs to store in your own database, then how in the
world could this new database ever be *not* a derivative? Even if you
were to define a single geocoding result as a produced work, combining a
large number of them in a database would still get you a derived
database again.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)

[Simon Poole]

Am 23.09.2015 um 01:26 schrieb Alex Barth:
> ..
>
> The Fairhurst Doctrine won't get us all the way on geocoding. It still
> leaves open what happens in scenarios where elements of the same kind
> in third party databases are geocoded with OSM data and others with
> third party data. This is a highly relevant scenario as OSM data
> particularly for geocoding (addresses, POIs) is usually not complete
> enough. The ability to use OSM for geocoding and "backfill" it with
> (non-license-compatible) third party data is exactly what would would
> make a gradual adoption of OSM possible.
>
> .

This is obviously off topic as it has little to do with comments and
input on the proposed guideline (and the proposed guideline has nothing
directly to do with geo-coding), however I'm curious: why wouldn't you
want to provide OSM with a list of addresses that you tried to geo-code
(successfully and non-successfully), for example as proposed in:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Geocoding_-_Guideline#The_Failover_Issue_and_Publishing_Derived_Datasets

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Geocoding as produced work (was: Proposed "Metadata"-Guideline)

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On 9/23/15, Tom Lee  wrote:
>>
>> I mean, nobody cares about a single on-the-fly geocoding result (this
>> easily falls under the "substantial" guideline) but if you repeatedly
>> query an ODbL database with the aim of retrieving from it, say, a
>> million lat-lon pairs to store in your own database, then how in the
>> world could this new database ever be *not* a derivative? Even if you
>> were to define a single geocoding result as a produced work, combining a
>> large number of them in a database would still get you a derived
>> database again.
>
>
> Can't the same argument apply to tiles? If you used tiles to recreate the
> OSM database (say, by tracing road geometry or by OCRing feature names) and
> then republishing under a different license, you would clearly be violating
> the ODbL.
>
> It seems as though the same approach can apply to geocoding: locate
> features to your heart's content, but if you use the results to create a
> general purpose geographic database that substitutes for/competes with OSM,
> you'll be in violation of the license.

A geocoding result is substantially different from a map tile. A
single geocoded result is arguably a single piece of data that is most
probably devoid of any copyright and by itself does not have any
database rights, while a map tile is a creative work that is clearly
copyrighted.

If you have multiple geocoded results, and if those results are
organized in a manner that enabled individual access, then you already
have a database (in the legal sense). I really cannot see how such can
be considered as a Produced Work when it is clearly a Derivative
Database when a source database was used to help produce the results.

Sets of map tiles, on the other hand, are not automatically a database
and because they are primarily creative works are considered Produced
Works. Just like a photo of a storefront may have embedded trademarks
in it, a map tile may have embedded data from a database in it too. It
is only when you extract the trademark from the photo, or the data
from the map tiles that you may possibly infringe on IP rights. Note
that the operative word here is 'extract'. No such extraction occurs
with geocoded results—they are pure data already.

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