This is not a particular unique situation, a sovereign country can, naturally, create exclusive rights or specific regulation for more or less whatever it cares.
Copyright is simply the most popular, with wide spread understanding and international treaties as support, set of exclusive intellectual property rights. But there is nothing stopping a government special casing geodata or other ip that they produce, or introducing special protection for otherwise not protected works, there can simply be no expectation that such regulation could be internationally enforced and reciprocal. Two examples are the national geo information law where I live and sui generis database rights in the EU. (Omiting some edge cases here, essentially the ones that you shouldn't ask about, because you wont like the answer) OSM is interested in its geodata being useful and usable globally, and because of its nature, particulary in the country the data is relevant in. As a result, unlike other projects, we can't ignore national quirks and restrictions and need to accomodate them as far as it is compatible with our mission. So in this case I would take the conservative stance (as our licence is open and does not discriminate against commercial use) and suggest that any use of government data would need permisson. I would not try to outlawyer the government as your argumentation would seem to imply you would like to do. Naturally it is completly possible to produce a fully functional map without resorting to government data, so not getting such permission is not a show stopper. tl;dr version: if you have quirky national regulations then please abide by them so that your work contributing to OSM is not in vain. If you are a resident in one of the edge case territories, you should read the OSMF ToU and carefully consider your situation. Simon On 16.07.2020 22:59, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > Hi Kathleen, all, > > Just as a bit of reference, the original intellectual property law > from 1924, back when the Philippines was a territory of the United > States, didn't have this commercial-with-prior-approval second > sentence and was basically modeled after the U.S. law (government > works are fully in the public domain). This additional sentence was > added in 1972 and was retained in the present law of 1997. Previous > analysis of the current law by Wikimedia volunteers with respect to > copyright can be seen here and which concludes that this second > sentence is some sort of additional non-copyright-based government > right: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-PhilippineGov > > This situation actually raises a lot of questions especially in the > context of OSM. For instance, if a government agency published a > dataset of polygons of places, it would probably be best to get the > agency's prior approval to import such dataset in order to waive the > requirement of "prior approval [...] for exploitation of such work for > profit" because end users of OSM should not have to ask the agency for > approval if they want to use the data that was included in OSM for profit. > > On the other hand, if an OSM mapper /derives/ new data from such a > dataset (for example, generating a representative point for each > polygon, maybe at the centroid, or maybe at at the "admin centre" if > the polygon represents settlements and the mapper used their best > judgement and research to place such points), then this new dataset is > no longer the same as the government dataset. If the OSM mapper added > the new derived data to OSM, then one could perhaps argue that prior > approval from the government agency is no longer needed because the > very act of mapping in OSM is not "for exploitation of such work for > profit". And furthermore, end users of OSM would also perhaps not need > to seek "prior approval" as well since they are not exploiting the > original government dataset but rather a derived dataset (ex., > points), and which cannot be used to reverse engineer the original > government dataset (ex., polygons). > > Regards, > Eugene > > > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 10:57 AM Kathleen Lu via legal-talk > <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>> > wrote: > > A few thoughts: > > I'd want to talk to a Philippine lawyer, because frankly, these > two sentences seem to contradict each other: /_No copyright shall > subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. However, > prior approval of the government agency or office wherein the work > is created shall be necessary for exploitation of such work for > profit_ > / > > What would be the consequences of not getting permission? A > violation of the government's non-copyright rights? Rights of > what? I didn't think the Philippines had database rights, but > there could well be some other non-copyright law. > > Looking online, I found this on the National Mapping authority's > website: > Can I edit and use the NAMRIA maps for business? Article III of > NAMRIA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) states that "the second party > shall use the digital data acquired from NAMRIA only for its own > authorized purpose and not for commercial purpose. If digital is > sold to other parties, the Second Party shall pay the full cost of > the digital data and its royalties". This applies only to digital > maps (scanned/vector) purchased from NAMRIA. > http://www.namria.gov.ph/faq.aspx > > So one question I would have is whether the data source in > question is digital data acquired from NAMRIA? > > I also found this list > http://www.geoportal.gov.ph/resources/PGPDataInventorywithSW&Trng.pdf > which seems to indicate that at least some government geodata has > no restrictions on it. With respect to at least those datasets, it > would seem that *explicit permission with respect to OSM* is > unnecessary. I didn't see a source for the letters mentioned in > this list, but it's possible that some of the data restrictions > would not be a problem for OSM, but they'd have to be examined on > a letter by letter basis. > > Best, > -Kathleen > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 6:17 PM Erwin Olario <gov...@gmail.com > <mailto:gov...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Recently, some edits in the country came to the attention of > the community and have been found to be derived from > government data. Volunteers in the community, after advising > the DWG of the process and action plan, are undertaking the > rollback of affected edits. > > In our community, the current practice follows the general > recommendation, that no (Philippine government) data should > be added into OpenStreetMap, unless explicit permission has > been obtained from the originating agency/office/owners that > the data will be added in OSM, under ODbL. > > The relevant local law on government data, states Republic Act > 8293 > <https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1997/06/06/republic-act-no-8293/>, > section 176: > "/_Works of the Government. ‑ 176.1. No copyright shall > subsist in any work of the Government of the Philippines. > However, prior approval of the government agency or office > wherein the work is created shall be necessary for > exploitation of such work for profit_. Such agency or office > may, among other things, impose as a condition the payment of > royalties. No prior approval or conditions shall be required > for the use for any purpose of statutes, rules and > regulations, and speeches, lectures, sermons, addresses, and > dissertations, pronounced, read or rendered in courts of > justice, before administrative agencies, in deliberative > assemblies and in meetings of public character. (Sec. 9, first > par., P.D. No. 49)"/ > > In the discussions by contributors, there are some who > expressed favor a more liberal interpretation of this section > of the law, that government data is ineligible to copyright, > hence no permission is necessary from the government. And if > the end-user has commercial plans for said data, it is up to > them to apply for said permission from the relevant government > agencies. > > However, this government permission requirement appears to > oppose the OSM license, wherein OSM data users are only > required to attribute, and not seek any additional > permissions. Hence, our promoted practice of seeking the > informed consent of data owners. > / > / > While the interpretation of the law is not a question of > popularity, there's no doubt that a more liberal > interpretation is desirable for our community but I'm > wondering if somebody from the licensing WG can provide us > specific guidance whether a liberal interpretation of this law > is aligned with the OSM license. > > /Erwin > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > » email: erwin@ > <mailto:er...@ngnuity.net>*n**gnu**it**y**.xyz* > <http://ngnuity.net/>| gov...@gmail.com <mailto:gov...@gmail.com> > » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin > » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 > 81CE 3A93 D56B > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
