Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)
On 05/09/2019 09:47, Jez Nicholson wrote: It would seem ridiculous for me to have to set up an account and> licence the underlying section of map to sell a single field But what> if I'm selling 15,000 fields?? etc., etc. Field boundaries don't change much over the years. If you use an OS map over 50 years old it is out of copyright, and can be marked up as the basis of a modern survey if needed. Get the person who drew the red line on a modern map to draw it again on an old map. Martin. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
On 05/09/2019 10:49, David Woolley wrote: On 05/09/2019 05:48, Warin wrote: If they had derived their data from OSM .. then all would be fine. As I hinted before, the use of a red line, and a custom printout from an OS detailed map, suggests this is a map for legal purposes. For both the Land Registry and council planning applications, a red line is the convention for showing a property boundary. Or, in planning terms, the application boundary, which may not necessarily coincide with ownership boundaries. But yes, the red line convention is widely used and widely understood, so a red outline on a map tends to suggest that it was produced as a legal document. In which case, it will definitely be based on an underlying OS map. Until you can get lawyers, the Land Registry, and councils to accept OSM derived mapping, this sort of map is always going to be OS derived. Maps used for legal purposes are always going to be OS (or, maybe one day in the future, whatever other company the government decides to award the contract to). However useful OSM may be in everyday life, a map that anybody can edit clearly isn't going to be suitable as a legal record of anything. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
Ah, I see that was probably just the point Jez was making: I missed the " *tax* money " in his post. Sorry. On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 12:15, Edward Bainton wrote: > Jez wrote: > > i'm just trying to get on with my businessusing a resource bought > and paid for with my hard earned tax money > > My understanding, from a relative who did a lot of lobbying for libraries > on copyright and data law, is that electronic publishing has caused a total > revolution in how these things work. > > In the past the map you bought and paid for really was your resource. Fair > enough, copyright prevented you from just going into business and printing > off more copies to sell on, or even keep for your own use; but other than > that you could do what you liked with the property in your hands - > including trace round the field you want to sell to your neighbour. > > The recent change to electronic everything is that no one ever parts with > the resource at all - they make it available under licence (= a permission > to do with something what would ordinarily be forbidden). As a private > contract that you freely agree to, the licensor can put just about anything > in the terms they like and courts will enforce that agreement. > > Profit-making business will alway outgun the public/community/charity > sector in the lobby rounds, so legislation grants only highly restrictive > public-interest exemptions. In the case of OS that is especially galling, > given that it was public money that built the map. > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
Jez wrote: > i'm just trying to get on with my businessusing a resource bought and paid for with my hard earned tax money My understanding, from a relative who did a lot of lobbying for libraries on copyright and data law, is that electronic publishing has caused a total revolution in how these things work. In the past the map you bought and paid for really was your resource. Fair enough, copyright prevented you from just going into business and printing off more copies to sell on, or even keep for your own use; but other than that you could do what you liked with the property in your hands - including trace round the field you want to sell to your neighbour. The recent change to electronic everything is that no one ever parts with the resource at all - they make it available under licence (= a permission to do with something what would ordinarily be forbidden). As a private contract that you freely agree to, the licensor can put just about anything in the terms they like and courts will enforce that agreement. Profit-making business will alway outgun the public/community/charity sector in the lobby rounds, so legislation grants only highly restrictive public-interest exemptions. In the case of OS that is especially galling, given that it was public money that built the map. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
On 05/09/2019 05:48, Warin wrote: If they had derived their data from OSM .. then all would be fine. As I hinted before, the use of a red line, and a custom printout from an OS detailed map, suggests this is a map for legal purposes. For both the Land Registry and council planning applications, a red line is the convention for showing a property boundary. Until you can get lawyers, the Land Registry, and councils to accept OSM derived mapping, this sort of map is always going to be OS derived. (Actually, at least for the Land Registry, the outline on the map is only indicative, not definitive.) Another issue with the Land Registry is that all the outline data is combined into an index map that can be searched, but not viewed, by the public. Combining OS and OSM derived data might cause licensing issues for that. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)
5 Sep 2019, 00:40 by bainton@gmail.com: > Out of interest, is OS's position on derived data clearly the correct one > legally speaking? I note the wiki talks in terms of OS 'claiming' IP in the > derived data, not that it actually *is* their IP, so I wondered. > As far as copyright goes, this seems fairly logical - without having copyright on derived data one would be allowed to trace OSM/Google maps/other copyrighted map, get exact copy and claim that it is free from any copyright/database rights/any legal limitations. That seems to be an obvious truck-sized loophole that is probably not supposed to exist. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
On 5/9/19 12:26 am, Jez Nicholson wrote: The curse of derived data! So much effort to be able to share the boundary of a property. **sigh** If they had derived their data from OSM .. then all would be fine. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)
As far as I know Ordnance Survey's theory of derived data has never been tested in court. However there's an upcoming High Court decision (arising from a dispute between 77M Ltd and OS) that might shed some light. On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 23:42, Edward Bainton wrote: The idea of asking a ranger to trace the boundary (on a printout of a > thoroughly detailed OSM, of course: better get to work...) is a great one. > iirc, the boundaries are all pretty major geographical features, so > hopefully fairly easy. But yes, Jez, what a faff. > > Out of interest, is OS's position on derived data clearly the correct one > legally speaking? I note the wiki talks in terms of OS 'claiming' IP in > the derived data, not that it actually *is* their IP, so I wondered. > > Obviously whether OS have over-egged or not it is a wholly different > question from whether, if they have, OSM would want to challenge them - I'm > asking from a theoretical pov only. > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps (Jez Nicholson)
The idea of asking a ranger to trace the boundary (on a printout of a thoroughly detailed OSM, of course: better get to work...) is a great one. iirc, the boundaries are all pretty major geographical features, so hopefully fairly easy. But yes, Jez, what a faff. Out of interest, is OS's position on derived data clearly the correct one legally speaking? I note the wiki talks in terms of OS 'claiming' IP in the derived data, not that it actually *is* their IP, so I wondered. Obviously whether OS have over-egged or not it is a wholly different question from whether, if they have, OSM would want to challenge them - I'm asking from a theoretical pov only. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
Hi, In previous conversations with the OS they were keen to point out the "Free to use data" page. This one's very wordy but it comes down to how "drawn by the charity, albeit over an OS base" actually occurred. If it didn't trace over any OS feature then the "Free to use data" page may apply. If it partly overlaps a feature then I'm unclear. Either way maybe this is something OSM UK should be flagging with the geospatial commission. https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/using-creating-data-with-os-products/free-to-use-data.html @Jez: you may want to add this to the wiki page as well. Best, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
The curse of derived data! So much effort to be able to share the boundary of a property. **sigh** I added some words to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey#Map_license Feel free to amend and/or question (in the discussion page). On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 2:54 PM David Woolley wrote: > On 03/09/2019 12:31, Edward Bainton wrote: > > I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes > > of countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, > > showing the extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes > > with flags indicating Crown copyright thus: > > > > /Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. ©Crown > > copyright and database rights 2010. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey > > licence number 6035/ > > This sounds like a Land Registry or Planning map. They are probably > breaching the licence by even showing it to outsiders. The red line > will have been traced relative to OS features. > > I would say definitely off limits, as this is the sort of map from which > OS is now funded. > > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
On 03/09/2019 12:31, Edward Bainton wrote: I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes of countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, showing the extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes with flags indicating Crown copyright thus: /Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. ©Crown copyright and database rights 2010. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey licence number 6035/ This sounds like a Land Registry or Planning map. They are probably breaching the licence by even showing it to outsiders. The red line will have been traced relative to OS features. I would say definitely off limits, as this is the sort of map from which OS is now funded. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 12:34, Edward Bainton wrote: > I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes of > countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, showing the > extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes with flags > indicating Crown copyright [snip] > The bit I'm interested in is a red line picking out the boundary of the > charity's territory - I asked if I could put these into OSM. That line was > presumably drawn by the charity, albeit over an OS base. (Tho I suppose just > possibly OS drew the red line under commission, and then I think the default > is that they have the copyright.) > > Where do I go with the legal side of things? Is this a complete dead end as > the wiki on copyright suggests? Or, if further enquiries reveal that the red > line is of the charity's own production, can the charity grant me (OSM) a > licence to reproduce the red line (and only the red line) on OSM? If the line has been drawn on the OS basemap by reference to features on the base map, then OS regards the line as "Derived Data" and claims IP rights in it. (The alternative would be if the line was independently surveyed (e.g. from a GPS trace), and then just layed on top of the OS map. In which case OS wouldn't claim any rights in the line itself.) See https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/public-sector/guidance/derived-data.html There is a mechanism for OS licensees to release derived data under the Open Government Licence. But reading https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/public-sector/licensing-using-os-data.html it's not clear to me if this only applies to Public Sector Bodies that are part of the Public Sector Mapping Agreement (PSMA). If the charity isn't a PSMA member, I think they would have to contact OS to find out what is allowed. A slight complicating factor if we were to be able to use the line in OSM is that we'd have to remove the OS base map from it before using it. Assuming you have a friendly contact at the charity and the region isn't too large/complicated, a more pragmatic approach might be to see if someone there has enough personal knowledge of the area they cover, *without* needing to refer to the OS-derived map, to be able to draw the boundary on an OSM base map for you. You could then use that map in OSM with just their permission. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker https://osm.mathmos.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Copyright in OS-derived maps
Hi all I've been sent a map by a local charity that looks after large swathes of countryside near Peterborough. It's for their own internal use, showing the extent of their estate. It's based on an OS map, and comes with flags indicating Crown copyright thus: *Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. ©Crown copyright and database rights 2010. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey licence number 6035* The bit I'm interested in is a red line picking out the boundary of the charity's territory - I asked if I could put these into OSM. That line was presumably drawn by the charity, albeit over an OS base. (Tho I suppose just possibly OS drew the red line under commission, and then I think the default is that they have the copyright.) Where do I go with the legal side of things? Is this a complete dead end as the wiki on copyright suggests? Or, if further enquiries reveal that the red line is of the charity's own production, can the charity grant me (OSM) a licence to reproduce the red line (and only the red line) on OSM? I'm sure these things have been well rehearsed somewhere before, but wiki on copyright and OS doesn't say where - pointers welcome. Thanks as ever for any help Edward ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
