On 23/09/2009, at 13.46, Jason Cunningham wrote: > To repeat, I am not saying the data must not be used, I am simply > raising an issue because I think there may be a problem. I don't > trust the British Government and OS. I would genuinely surprised > (and pleased) if JNCC had paid OS to remove copyright. I also look > forward to seeing Ramsar sites added.
Thank you for your reply! I am sorry if my initial message to this thread sounded overly harsh. IANAL, but my perspective on the matter is this: By entering into the Ramsar convention, the contracting parties have made certain commitments, foremost of course an obligation to take care of the protected areas. In addition, the contracting parties have had to make certain deliverables, which for example is like is stated in [0], point vi): "Supporting communications, education and public awareness. The publicly-accessible Web-based RSIS forms an important component of the Convention’s CEPA delivery by ensuring that full and up-to-date information on each designated Ramsar site is widely available, in order to secure wide public recognition of this key pillar of the implementation of the Convention by its Parties." This suggests to me that the contracting parties cannot withhold something as basic as copyright, because that would be a violation of their commitments towards the treaty. Finally, it is my impression that you cannot hold a copyright on information, only the physical (i.e. paper or digital) representation of it. So the information contained in the polygonal shape of the affected areas would be free for the government to give away. Again, IANAL. Cheers, Morten _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
