OK, Can I infer that if DATA VENDOR choose to publish a map of their creation which is itself copyright and on that map or in an attachment they print the coordinates of all points on that map, surely copying of any recognizable portion of that map including the printed coordinates then becomes an infringement? So if data vendor then chooses to publish a raw set of coordinates in digital form (because that is the business they are in) - no embellishments, possibly they could protect their copyright on the coordinates by producing a single digital map with those coordinates printed and issue as "the product", the digital coordinate list with the coordinate map. Aren't we now dealing with semantics and in fact if data vendor could prove that an exact coordinate representation of a road centreline say, that they have captured using GPS or aerial photography is owned by them - because they have the raw data and process documented (as has been mentioned in a previous post), then their data in whatever form is protected?
>From a practical point-of-view, digital map data must be protected whether it is the coordinates or a representation. It would be nice to think that every data vendor might publish metadata which not only clearly identifies all those wonderful and mostly ignored"quality" attributes but also clearly states the source "material" in detail, whether it be a sub-license (eg from a local authority) or field capture or whatever. For a non-government vendor of a national data set, you would suspect that the metadata would be very extensive, clearly identifying and justifying the origins for all regions. The next challenge might be a standard in acceptance testing of a published data set which might largely focus on verification of metadata. Then much like publication and peer review of scientific papers, a data set is verified for use in the community. This in conjunction with license verification much like software registration and checking (a MS style "classid" for data?). I think this approach is important to protect the valuable work of the data developers and to encourage and facilitate more properly licensed and identified derivative works. With the data developer protected by a rigorous and public, release, verification and reuse process (supported by the GIS vendors) and hopefully more flexible pricing, those of us who use or produce derivative works might find life easier. Phil. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 3:49 AM Subject: Re: MI-L:- RE: Copyright and protection of data, reply > 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 > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- List hosting provided by Directions Magazine | www.directionsmag.com | To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
