On 10/11/2009 19:35, Peter Miller wrote: > On 10 Nov 2009, at 19:05, Tom Chance wrote: >> We get permission from TfL, or we seek costly legal advice. > > I agree that the cautious approach would be to ask. I was wondering if > we could use the argument that it is in the background (as is a photo of > a cafe with a coca-cola sign in the window) or that we are creating a > 'collective' work of more than one 'creative' element.
I think the Coca-Cola example is a red(!) herring. In general if you take a picture of something where the something is incidental in a street scene, that's fine, but (in the UK) if you *specifically* take a picture of something which is copyright, for example a sculpture or a building or a logo, then you are infringing the copyright. Of course, the way in which you use the picture would decide on how 'incidental' your use was - if you sold a photo of a sculpture for use in an auction catalogue for example. Copyright law provides explicitly for incidental photography as an exception, but works in the public realm are still subject to copyright. http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/4225-incidental-use-copyright.htm > The reality is that the law doesn't provide certainty in these sorts of > things. Our intent is clearly not incidental use. Yes, it's a grey area, but we are on the wrong side of grey. >> On a cartography point, would we specify a rule for the operator TfL >> so that every other metro system doesn't get the same logo? Would this >> open the Mapnik stylesheet up to thousands of extra lines to >> accommodate every local symbol? If it creates a better map, yes, probably. David _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
