The path data appears to be from the CC-BY derivative and not the public domain original.
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. Thanks, Harbs > On Mar 6, 2018, at 7:56 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > Hi Om, > > Comments inline. > > > On 3/5/18, 3:09 PM, "omup...@gmail.com <mailto:omup...@gmail.com> on behalf > of OmPrakash Muppirala" > <omup...@gmail.com <mailto:omup...@gmail.com> on behalf of > bigosma...@gmail.com <mailto:bigosma...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid> >> 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 , but to me,  seems clearly under >>> GNU >>> Document and CC-BY-SA. The act of removing the state names from the >>> data >>> in  made it a derivative work, and it appears that the author of  >>> 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: >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.public >> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.public> >> domainsherpa.com >> <http://domainsherpa.com/>%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  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 > >  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_US_map_borders.svg > <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_US_map_borders.svg>