Dave F. wrote: > Chris Hill wrote: > >> Dave F. wrote: >> >> >>> Tom Hughes wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 25/09/09 13:16, Dave F. wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I had an email conversation with the mapping officer from my local >>>>> council. He intimated that the data relating to public rights of way, >>>>> and its associated copyright, would belong to the Local Council. When >>>>> they make a legal order to record a public right of way they send a copy >>>>> of the order to the OS who then copy the line of the right of way onto >>>>> their own maps. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In principle that is correct - the problem arises if the council has >>>> referred to an OS map in any way while defining the right of way. If >>>> they have then the OS will claim it is a derived work and infected by >>>> their copyright etc. >>>> >>>> Tom >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> The map he sent is titled as a Definitive Map. It has an OS underlay, >>> but the information laid on top is compiled from Council gathered info. >>> eg GPS survey equipment from an independent company employed to produce >>> the definitive maps. >>> It would come down to what you, I, council & OS mean by 'define' I suppose. >>> >>> This is the copyright at the bottom: >>> "Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the >>> Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. >>> Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to >>> prosecution or civil proceedings." >>> >>> Note it says 'reproduced' not produced. Not sure if that is significant >>> or not. >>> >>> If I was to transfer the paths, I wouldn't be copying the OS underlay >>> map just the ways of the path. Does that make a difference? >>> >>> Cheers >>> Dave F. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> The copyright statement at the bottom is all that counts. OS will claim >> it is a derivative work, so, they could claim that if you copy from it >> into OSM you will be in breach their copyright. The tracks only gain >> context because they are on an OS map. The only way to settle who is in >> the wrong is to go to court, which OSM cannot afford. I don't like the >> wide-ranging claims that the OS make about derivative works but I don't >> think we can afford to ignore them. >> >> Why not walk or cycle the routes with a GPS, collect the tracks and >> photos, enjoy some time in the countryside, add the paths to the map >> with a clear conscience and metaphorically thumb your nose at the OS? >> >> > I do Chris, I do. > However, if I can find a way to /legally/ import data I don't see a > problem. Take a look at Transit Talk for examples of mass data import > (Naptan). It saves hell of a lot of time! > I know all about NaPTAN - I am currently visiting every one of the 1299 bus stops in Hull to check that the NaPTAN import is correct, and finding a significant number that are not. NaPTAN brings us benefits, but since every stop needs checking, time saving might not be one of them. Most imports bring similar issues of checking.
I don't want the work done in your area jeopardized by a letter from OS's lawyers. Cheers, Chris _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
