The path data appears to be from the CC-BY derivative and not the public domain 

I do think we need to either get clarification of replace the path data (and 
possibly SVG file). I’m happy doing it myself.

I have opened a JIRA for an official ruling on the topic. It feels like it’s 
easier to just replace the data than get the ruling, but I think this is 
something which *should* have a ruling. If it’s OK to reuse SVG data in Cat B 
images, folks shouldn’t have to jump through hoops just because there’s nothing 
clear on the topic.

I do think it’s a relatively minor issue and should be classified as a bug. 
It’s not something that should hold up a release if it can’t be resolved before 
the next release. I just created an issue on the topic.


> On Mar 6, 2018, at 7:56 AM, Alex Harui <> wrote:
> Hi Om,
> Comments inline.
> On 3/5/18, 3:09 PM, " <> on behalf 
> of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> < <> on behalf of 
> <>> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Alex Harui <>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Om,
>>> I am not able to follow your logic.  I think I've read your full email
>>> and
>>> have looked at the links.  It appears you are trying to say that the
>>> data
>>> points we are using came from [1], but to me, [1] seems clearly under
>>> GNU
>>> Document and CC-BY-SA.  The act of removing the state names from the
>>> data
>>> in [2] made it a derivative work, and it appears that the author of [1]
>>> says that work is not under Public Domain.
>> The SVG asset itself is licensed as such.  We are not using the svg asset
>> anywhere.  We are only using the map data which came from some other
>> source.
>> Map data is not copyrightable.
>> Please read the section under "The map wasn’t eligible for copyright in
>> the
>> first place" here:
>> <>
>> <>%2Fpublic-domain-maps.html&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.c
>> om%7Cdb3e0b405fdc43cf995108d582ee4e3b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7
>> C0%7C0%7C636558882380334796&sdata=lhmEgOxJKLHmRSz5JAwCLCuAI0Iqy3cn7QQu%2FI
>> aaOfQ%3D&reserved=0
>> " If the components of the map are “entirely obvious” the map will not be
>> copyrightable. For example, an outline map of the state of Texas, or one
>> of
>> the US showing the state boundaries is *not* copyrightable. (Not
>> creative.)
>> Ditto maps that use standard cartographic conventions, like a survey map.
>> (Not original.) "
> Right after the passage you quote, it says this:
>    "This is could be a tough call in certain cases
>    (I mean, come on ... “entirely obvious”?) but
>    that's the what the courts have said. Just keep
>    in mind ... what you think is entirely obvious,
>    the mapmaker might contest as creative."
> Let's see what other PMC members think.  To me, the quote I pasted
> indicates that this is still a controversial area.  The definition of "map
> data", AIUI, has to be tied to facts.  So, GIS coordinates, or any other
> lat/lng fact that is used to create a map is not copyrightable, and any
> map image produced by the US Government is in the public domain.  But I
> believe there is a gray area around the digitizing of maps.  The number of
> points chosen which create the level of detail of a map could be argued to
> be a form of expression as well as the line-weights chosen for the lines.
> Also, the provenance/history of how the SVG file you chose became public
> domain is murky.  I was unable to determine where the data points came
> from.
> To me, that's one reason why folks on wikimedia are claiming copyright and
> different licensing on their maps that are essentially digitized from
> public domain US Government maps.  The fact that the data points for the
> states are different in different SVG files also leads me to believe the
> data points are not facts.  I think the safest and least controversial
> option is for us to use a map that is in the public domain already.  This
> map [1] seems to have a much simpler public domain provenance.  Then I
> think there is less surface for nitpickers to attack.
> If other PMC members want to go with the current data you have in the
> files then I'll defer to them (and you).
> Thanks,
> -Alex
> [1] 
> <>

Reply via email to