On 11/6/08, SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So.... ignoring the lack of OSM attribution on the OSM map (hint > hint :-) > > http://code.flickr.com/blog/2008/10/30/the-shape-of-alpha/ > > Aren't these polygons just vast derivative works of either OSM or > TeleAtlas/NavTeq data? All those geocoded photos that were just placed > on a map... derive the places from the map, right? Then if you derive > the polygons from that set of points.. the polygons are just derived > from the map. I thought those guys dont like you deriving polygonal > datasets without paying them extra beer tokens?
Per USC 17, Section 101 -- A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work". Per USC 17, Section 102 (b) -- In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. So, it could be argued that -- "polygons from either OSM or TeleAtlas/NavTeq data; the geocoded photos that were just placed on a map... from the map; the polygons from that set of points.. " -- at each stage, the successive creation is deriving only the location. The location itself is fact and is thus not copyrightable per 17, 102 (b). In any case, all this would be settled only if someone gets sued and then that someone either defends successfully or loses. My personal sense is that a case of copyright infringement would not pass muster. Save your beer tokens and buy me one when you meet me next. > > I applaud aaron and dan and all the coolness at flickr and the JFDI > attitude, I really do... but if you guys are doing it, does that mean > we can do it too? Please? > > Because, if it is cool to do what you're doing, then by extension it > must be cool for me to derive polygons raw from the data. And, say, > um, vectors. > > You're generating these convex hulls from the point data set (well, > maybe, some don't look convex), I wonder what the voronoi polygons of > WOE points look like, any better? > > Unless I've missed something and in fact all those images are EXIF > geotagged from raw GPS? > > Yours pointing pointedly at the Elephant In The Room, > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > Geowanking mailing list > [email protected] > http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org > -- Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/ Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/ _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
