Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
Assuming GPS tracks have some legal protection in some legal jurisdictions, does anyone care to take a stab at answering my original question? :) TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
1. While a GPS track recorded 'by accident' while you're doing something else could be considered mere fact, if you expressly go out on a mapping trip and choose which streets to walk down and which to omit, there is some creative element. (I know that I walk in careful patterns to make a good- looking trace.) 2. Obviously, waypoint text included on the track is copyrightable. 3. If OSM chooses to switch to ODbL, and attempts to assert restrictions over the redistribution of factual data even if not copyrightable, it would be inconsistent to treat other people's data with less than the strictness we demand for our own. (This point is obviously an opinion.) 4. Sweat-of-the-brow and/or database right law would also argue against unrestricted use of GPS tracks outside the purpose for which they were originally contributed. 5. If GPS tracks were, in the end, considered unprotected and freely usable for adding to a non-CC-BY-SA data set, then most of the map data would be also, by the same argument. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
Jukka Rahkonen writes: I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not copyrightable. Everybody can use at least individual tracks for any purpose. At the moment only OSM map data are under CC-BY-SA but track logs are free facts. When we signed up to OSM, we agreed: By creating an account, you agree that all work uploaded to openstreetmap.org and all data created by use of any tools which connect to openstreetmap.org is to be (non-exclusively) licensed under this Creative Commons license (by-sa) Surely this includes GPS tracks? Ok, the issue of whether they are copyrightable is still up for debate, but presumably the answer is, as usual, probably in some jurisdictions (IANAL). But by uploading them to OSM and releasing them CC-by-SA, we have certainly tried to assert copyright, at the very least (which is a shame - although I might have some misgivings about the map data being PD, I, and I'm sure most others would have no such misgivings about GPS traces). David -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-ODbL-CTs-and-tracing-GPS-tracks-tp5428829p5437347.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:14 AM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Assuming GPS tracks have some legal protection in some legal jurisdictions, does anyone care to take a stab at answering my original question? :) On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:51 PM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Is tracing someones ODbL licensed GPS track a creation of a derived database or a produced work? Depends how you store the trace, doesn't it? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
On 18/08/10 15:13, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:51 PM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Is tracing someones ODbL licensed GPS track a creation of a derived database or a produced work? Depends how you store the trace, doesn't it? How specifically does the interpretation of the ODbL depend on trace storage? TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:14 AM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: On 18/08/10 15:13, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:51 PM, TimSC mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk wrote: Is tracing someones ODbL licensed GPS track a creation of a derived database or a produced work? Depends how you store the trace, doesn't it? How specifically does the interpretation of the ODbL depend on trace storage? Sounds like a good question to ask your lawyer. A produced work is a work (such as an image, audiovisual material, text, or sounds) resulting from using the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents (via a search or other query) from this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database. A Derivative Database Means a database based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents. This includes, but is not limited to, Extracting or Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new Database. If you store the trace as an image, then it's likely a produced work, and not a derivative database. If you store the trace as a database, then it's like a derivative database, and not a produced work. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
TimSC mapp...@... writes: Hi all, Apologies if this has been raised before, but I was wondering about GPS track data and licenses. Presumably we are using public GPS trace data under CC-BY-SA. By the way, it would be helpful to clarify that on the wiki. I'll ignore the problem of tracing other people's tracks and the resulting relicensing issues. At the moment, I am considering how GPS tracks work with the CT and ODbL (assuming they too will be relicensed). I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not copyrightable. Everybody can use at least individual tracks for any purpose. At the moment only OSM map data are under CC-BY-SA but track logs are free facts. Anybody can download the original track logs, trace from them and create a commercial or public domain map from those. I believe that after the possible license change there would not be any difference between GPS track logs and other kind of contributions and they would all be covered by ODbL and contributor terms. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
On 17/08/10 08:58, Jukka Rahkonen wrote I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not copyrightable. Since there was substantial investment in obtaining the data, don't database rights come into play? TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
For some of us, our tracks a works of art; at least artful. Certainly, Jeremy Wood thinks so: http://www.gpsdrawing.com/maps/traverse-me/prints.html -- Peter Millar (sherbourne) - 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote: TimSC mapp...@... writes: Hi all, Apologies if this has been raised before, but I was wondering about GPS track data and licenses. Presumably we are using public GPS trace data under CC-BY-SA. By the way, it would be helpful to clarify that on the wiki. I'll ignore the problem of tracing other people's tracks and the resulting relicensing issues. At the moment, I am considering how GPS tracks work with the CT and ODbL (assuming they too will be relicensed). I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not copyrightable. Is this a correct understanding of what a fact is, from a legal point of view? A telephone number is a fact in the sense that it is it's own identity. A copy will be identical. And this seems to be the basis of much US case law in this area. On the other hand GPS tracks are made up of information, but they are samples of a paths and no two sets of GPS tracks will ever be identical. The stuff of GPS tracks is very different from the stuff of telephone numbers. Before using the GPS tracks are facts meme we really should have a better understanding of what constitutes a fact, in legal terms. Everybody can use at least individual tracks for any purpose. At the moment only OSM map data are under CC-BY-SA but track logs are free facts. Anybody can download the original track logs, trace from them and create a commercial or public domain map from those. I believe that after the possible license change there would not be any difference between GPS track logs and other kind of contributions and they would all be covered by ODbL and contributor terms. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
80n 80n...@... writes: Jukka Rahkonen wrote: I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not copyrightable. Is this a correct understanding of what a fact is, from a legal point of view? A telephone number is a fact in the sense that it is it's own identity. A copy will be identical. And this seems to be the basis of much US case law in this area. On the other hand GPS tracks are made up of information, but they are samples of a paths and no two sets of GPS tracks will ever be identical. The stuff of GPS tracks is very different from the stuff of telephone numbers.Before using the GPS tracks are facts meme we really should have a better understanding of what constitutes a fact, in legal terms. I can't say how facts look like from the legal point of view, or if such exist at all. In real life many of us consider also unrepeatable approximations as facts, like how much we weight. Completely defined facts like telephone numbers are rare exceptions. Most measurements are more or less inaccurate. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision GPS track logs recorded with recreational GPS units are approximations of the route, accurate to something like +/- 10 meters. I wouldn't say that due to this inaccuracy track logs are creative work. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they still are from the legal point of view. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 5:54 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Jukka Rahkonen jukka.rahko...@latuviitta.fi wrote: TimSC mapp...@... writes: Hi all, Apologies if this has been raised before, but I was wondering about GPS track data and licenses. Presumably we are using public GPS trace data under CC-BY-SA. By the way, it would be helpful to clarify that on the wiki. I'll ignore the problem of tracing other people's tracks and the resulting relicensing issues. At the moment, I am considering how GPS tracks work with the CT and ODbL (assuming they too will be relicensed). I have understood that uploaded GPS track logs that we have now are effectively public domain. They are facts (even they do not allways tell the truth) and they miss all the creativity so they are not copyrightable. Is this a correct understanding of what a fact is, from a legal point of view? A telephone number is a fact in the sense that it is it's own identity. A copy will be identical. And this seems to be the basis of much US case law in this area. On the other hand GPS tracks are made up of information, but they are samples of a paths and no two sets of GPS tracks will ever be identical. The stuff of GPS tracks is very different from the stuff of telephone numbers. Before using the GPS tracks are facts meme we really should have a better understanding of what constitutes a fact, in legal terms. I think the GPS tracks are facts meme simply means that the tracks are a recording of where the GPS device has calculated its position to be at certain moments in time. The fact is not this road is at so-and-so coordinates, because the GPS tracks does not have to correspond to a road or anything else on the ground at all, but rather, the fact is that the GPS device has recorded its position at so-and-so coordinates at so-and-so point in time. It's no more or less factual than recording temperature and other meteorological data at a weather station. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
On 08/17/2010 05:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/17 Eugene Alvin Villarsea...@gmail.com: It's no more or less factual than recording temperature and other meteorological data at a weather station. IMHO it is not comparable at all, because we don't turn simply the gps on and wait what it registers, but we actively move around on purpose to record tracks. This is completely different because you do it actively as opposed to collecting meteorological data usually trying the opposite: not to influence the measurement. The information recorded is not, however, arbitrary or fanciful. It is intended to be a competent record of an existing geographic feature that fits a pre-existing category (e.g. a road). It is creative only to the extent that it is incompetent. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
On 18 August 2010 01:51, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: It's no more or less factual than recording temperature and other meteorological data at a weather station. In most countries various government and non-government organisations try to claim copyright over that sort of information. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
2010/8/17 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: It's no more or less factual than recording temperature and other meteorological data at a weather station. IMHO it is not comparable at all, because we don't turn simply the gps on and wait what it registers, but we actively move around on purpose to record tracks. This is completely different because you do it actively as opposed to collecting meteorological data usually trying the opposite: not to influence the measurement. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 08/17/2010 05:35 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/8/17 Eugene Alvin Villarsea...@gmail.com: It's no more or less factual than recording temperature and other meteorological data at a weather station. IMHO it is not comparable at all, because we don't turn simply the gps on and wait what it registers, but we actively move around on purpose to record tracks. This is completely different because you do it actively as opposed to collecting meteorological data usually trying the opposite: not to influence the measurement. The information recorded is not, however, arbitrary or fanciful. It is intended to be a competent record of an existing geographic feature that fits a pre-existing category (e.g. a road). The path described by a GPS trace is the result of the actions and decisions of the person controlling the GPS unit. Unless you can read their mind you cannot tell what their purpose was. If they declare it to be a creative act then it probably carries enough creativity (selection and arrangement) to meet the very low threshold that has been established as necessary for something to be copyrightable. It is creative only to the extent that it is incompetent. The case for creativity in GPS tracks seems to be at least as strong as in OSM content, manybe stronger. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL, CTs and tracing GPS tracks
Hi all, Apologies if this has been raised before, but I was wondering about GPS track data and licenses. Presumably we are using public GPS trace data under CC-BY-SA. By the way, it would be helpful to clarify that on the wiki. I'll ignore the problem of tracing other people's tracks and the resulting relicensing issues. At the moment, I am considering how GPS tracks work with the CT and ODbL (assuming they too will be relicensed). Is tracing someones ODbL licensed GPS track a creation of a derived database or a produced work? What is the impact when we upload the traced data under the CTs? It seems the tracing will require at least attribution (to OSM admittedly) but possibly also share alike. Would the attribution or share alikeness of tracing be a problem with the CTs? I am not even going to try to speculate on the answer this time, I am more interested in other people's views. Regards, TimSC ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
