Mr. Henderson made some interesting points. First, he is in the UK, where they have different copyright laws. Two, it appears that much of their digital tagging is to detect if someone copies a map (see his comments on colors). the map is not the data, and a map can be copyright. The unknown thing is what constitutes raw data for a street map. Is it the coordinates for the center line for a street, the coordinates of the actual edges of a street, or the coordinates of the property line of the easement for a street? If someone uses the coordinates of the center line for a street (the raw data) and creates an imaginary double line representation of that street, then the double line representation can be copyright, BUT the coordinates of the centerline cannot be copyright.
There are still many countries that alter aerial photos that contain images of military installations. Do not even think about trying to take photographs in italy from an airplane. you will end up in jail. What you have to do is notify the italian military first, get their permission, take the photographs, give the raw film to them. They will develop it, inspect the film and give you what they deam acceptable. Italy is also great fun to map. They use the Monte Marino coordinate system on shore, and greenwich coords off shore. In a message dated 5/3/02 5:06:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Just to add my own opinion to this particular thread. The argument that OS > "introduce" known errors into their data is incorrect. There was a time > when it was not possible to map secret military installations due to a > threat to National Security, in these cases "filler" data was added to the > maps. However, with the advent of satellite imagery being commercially > available this is no longer a concern and so does not happen any more. > > We can trace our data due to the way in which we collect and create it, by > examining third party data that is alleged to be copied from our own we are > able to determine whether or not it is ours. We also finger print some of > our raster products and use particular colour maps - all of which help us > to determine whether or not our data has been copied. > > I personally believe that it is essential to copyright data in order to > protect it, otherwise why would anybody bother to collect it in the first > place. It costs money to collect the data and generate output, it is not > unreasonable for a company to expect to be able to protect their investment > and expenditure. > > If a company can't, within reason, protect its revenues then why should it > bother to collect the data. If this view was then taken by everyone we > would end up in a situation where would have no data or at the very least > lots of very low quality data. > > Colin Henderson > GI Development > Ordnance Survey >
