Re: [talk-au] NearMap
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 10:49:07 +0800 Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: The nearmap.com twitter feed (or Facebook, if you prefer) is your friend... we announce flight starts, flight ends and publication of new surveys. http://www.nearmap.com/?ll=-35.082167,147.302565z=21t=hnmd=20101207 Cheers Ben On 18 December 2010 08:49, Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net wrote: New nearmap imagery from 7th December of flooding in Wagga I just noticed. I'm not into twitter, facebook or anything similar - I can spend enough time on the net now without any other distractions. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] a local data compilation ruling that may be of interest
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 13:53:20 +1100 Jim Croft jim.cr...@gmail.com wrote: or not... http://minterstmt.blogspot.com/2010/12/no-copyright-in-white-and-yellow-pages.html jim Interesting. Not considered is the possibility that the people working as contractors for Telstra (as I recall they were/are not employees) retained any copyright over what they collected. Certainly the compilation of the facts/data is not subject to copyright, sweat of the brow does not bring copyright, but no light is shed on the intelligent effort involved in how do I tag this object? including when new tags are proposed and used. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] a local data compilation ruling that may be of interest
On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 13:53 +1100, Jim Croft wrote: or not... http://minterstmt.blogspot.com/2010/12/no-copyright-in-white-and-yellow-pages.html I can see how this ruling applies to White pages, as that is simply a listing of facts. Yellow pages however, is very different, with listings all sorted into categories (some listings into multiple categories), and a lot of the listings having artwork and other copyrighted materials like logos, etc. How can someone claim that theres no creative copyrightable work in the yellow pages? David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] a local data compilation ruling that may be of interest
On 20 December 2010 18:57, David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: I can see how this ruling applies to White pages, as that is simply a listing of facts. Yellow pages however, is very different, with listings all sorted into categories (some listings into multiple categories), and a lot of the listings having artwork and other copyrighted materials like logos, etc. How can someone claim that theres no creative copyrightable work in the yellow pages? I saw that comment (possibly from a lawyer commenting on the previous ruling) and I couldn't figure out why the judge(s) would have included the yellow pages in their ruling(s) or why Telstra didn't split/put up a better argument for copyright on their YellowPage phone books... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] a local data compilation ruling that may be of interest
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:57:34 +1100 David Murn da...@incanberra.com.au wrote: On Mon, 2010-12-20 at 13:53 +1100, Jim Croft wrote: or not... http://minterstmt.blogspot.com/2010/12/no-copyright-in-white-and-yellow-pages.html I can see how this ruling applies to White pages, as that is simply a listing of facts. Yellow pages however, is very different, with listings all sorted into categories (some listings into multiple categories), and a lot of the listings having artwork and other copyrighted materials like logos, etc. How can someone claim that theres no creative copyrightable work in the yellow pages? David The logos etc in the YP are copyright to the businesses who stick them in. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Does this mean?.....
Jim Wrote http://minterstmt.blogspot.com/2010/12/no-copyright-in-white-and-yellow-pages.html Since taking a photo of something entails little or no independent intellectual effort, does this means that if someone publishs a photograph then anyone can freely derive any information from that photoghraph without even any attribution, if they so desire? (In Australia juristriction of course). Also I believe that the following actions also entail little or no independent intellectual effort. 1) walking/riding/driving around with a gps turned on and collecting GPS traces. 2) Tracing roads from either GPS traces or any imagery. 3) Copying down street names from a street sign and then adding then to a traced road. 4) Noting and publishing the location of POIs. 5) etc... Therefore, does this also mean that any contributions to the OSM project attract no copyright and can be freely used to derive information from, without any attribution, if so desired? I really hope the answers to these two questions are yes, since it appeals to what I consider freedom of information. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Does this mean?.....
On 21 December 2010 10:59, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Also I believe that the following actions also entail little or no independent intellectual effort. 1) walking/riding/driving around with a gps turned on and collecting GPS traces. 2) Tracing roads from either GPS traces or any imagery. 3) Copying down street names from a street sign and then adding then to a traced road. 4) Noting and publishing the location of POIs. 5) etc... Therefore, does this also mean that any contributions to the OSM project attract no copyright and can be freely used to derive information from, without any attribution, if so desired? I really hope the answers to these two questions are yes, since it appeals to what I consider freedom of information. My reading of the case is that it would have no bearing on deciding whether copyright subsists in each individual's manual contributions to OSM. The rules to determine that aren't really addressed, and Australia has typically has had a very low threshold for whether copyright subsists in a work. My opinion is copyright likely would still subsist in each contribution that was any greater than the purely trivial, and that the legal landscape to determine this hasn't really altered. However, if copyright doesn't subsist in each individual contribution, then this case will have a real bearing on whether copyright subsists in the entire OSM database. I would say that if copyright doesn't subsist in the individual contributions, then the automated process that we have to compile the database from the contributions doesn't meet the requirements to have a new copyrightable work, and therefore copyright would not subsist in the OSM db in Australia. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Does this mean?.....
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Since taking a photo of something entails little or no independent intellectual effort, In what context? Obviously artistic photography is copyrightable. Also I believe that the following actions also entail little or no independent intellectual effort. 1) walking/riding/driving around with a gps turned on and collecting GPS traces. 2) Tracing roads from either GPS traces or any imagery. 3) Copying down street names from a street sign and then adding then to a traced road. 4) Noting and publishing the location of POIs. 5) etc... Who knows. Without a copyright lawyer, I don't think we'll get far by trying to interpret the results of this case. (I would point out that the case seemed to be about processing existing data, not producing it.) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Does this mean?.....
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: Since taking a photo of something entails little or no independent intellectual effort, On 21 December 2010 13:08, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: In what context? Obviously artistic photography is copyrightable. And even non-artistic photography... However, this case draws a real distinction between the human process of originality, and an automated process according to a set of rules. I've no doubt that if I take a photo out of an aeroplane window that copyright subsists in that photo. However, it would be interesting to see what the courts would now make of a satellite taking photos automatically according to a standard process of the earths surface. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
