> > So I think the end result is that, unless someone managed to geotag a photo >> with a non-real "fact", there can be no licensing issue. And unlike some >> copyleft schemes, derivative works utilizing what can be assumed "factual" >> in the source work would be considered original. So the geolocations derived >> from copyrighted works presented as databases of "facts" would be considered >> facts. And creating polygons based on those facts would not be impacted by >> the original copyright. >> > > Um no.. so a collection of those derived points is no longer a fact, it's a > collection of facts which is covered by either sweat of the brow or database > directive. When I last spoke to a copyright lawyer about this, he was pretty > clear that if I was to derive a point on a map that was okay but deriving > the two endpoints of straight street and then by logic deriving the street > vector... that was not cool. By a long way. Then deriving polygons and more > vectors was even less cool.
I guess I wasn't aware of where court precedent is drawing the line. So you're saying that a point is considered a "fact" but if you connect those "facts" you no longer have a fact, but a copyrightable work? You're probably infinitely more knowlegeable of the state-of-the-art for derivative works. I'd be willing to take the stand as an expert witness, though. My field of research is the ontology of geographic information (and I'm not talking Semantic Web). What TeleAtlas et al have that OSM lacks and can't derive from graphic representations is the underlying road network (a graph network) that enables way-finding. It really surprises me that TeleAtlas et al would be chasing trying to copyright line segments instead of focusing on where their customers really derive value (the wayfinding network). > No what would be really cool is if someone set up >> letsinfringethefrickingmap.com with subdomains >> points.letsinfringethefrickingmap.com and >> vector.letsinfringethefrickingmap.com and so on. Each one would start by >> inviting the public to derive vast sets of points, vectors and polygons from >> Google, Yahoo and MSFT maps. > > <grin> I guess I'm not as radical as you are, Steve. I think I'd also get myself into trouble by even suggesting such a thing would be cool... In the long run, I don't think it could be crowd sourced. Making maps is fun - making a cloud of points purely derived from a copyrighted work, while being a great spanner-in-the-works, doesn't sound like as much fun. > Then just sit and wait for the cease and desist letters to come in, and you > can 'map' out what they feel is legal and what isn't, since they're all so > don't-wake-the-sleeping-giant on this and won't actually tell you clearly. > You then can cross off the use cases that they That's another danger in the OSM database. I'd hate to see TeleAtlas et al get all "RIAA-on-Napster" with OSM - so keeping the distance is the best course. > Direction is one thing, purpose is entirely another. We have a clear > purpose. > Ahhhh... You have purpose... But do you enforce that purpose on all OSM contributors? I hope you don't because that, to me, is the beauty of the thing. Others can use OSM for their own purposes, even if you see the world differently. -Eric -- -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=- Eric B. Wolf 720-209-6818 USGS Geographer Center of Excellence in GIScience PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography
_______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
