On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Gautam John <gau...@prathambooks.org>wrote:

> Vickram, in my opinion and that of a friend, asking for a voluntary
> license (18,19,30A) along with the fact that it is a transformative
> use is probably the best bet. If not, fair dealing but that does leave
> us open to a legal challenge. Aside from this, there is the issue that
> even if we did get a license, we then do not have the ability to
> re-license it out under a CC-BY-SA license as required by Wikipedia
> and that would also run afoul of the fair dealing clause.

Yes, I also thought of that. It does suppose that we have to define what
precisely is meant by 'owned by the Government' mean, in terms of whether
the Government actually owns anything rather than hold it in trust for us,
which is probably not precisely the same as is meant to be covered under the
Wikipedia freedom license.

Srikanth asks how raw data can be copyrighted. That is probably a better
starting point.

It seems to me that forms uploaded to Wikipedia fulfil the definition of
'authorship' [2(d(vi)], hence the Government cannot claim prior copyright in
the first place. All we would be doing in this case is creating artistic
forms that use data that is uncopyrightable, just as we are always free to
use the letters of the alphabet, and the colours of the spectrum, in
creating a map.

Also, wrt infringement, in 2(m) and 2(n) it is not clear to me that creation
of a new depiction transgresses in any way the protection afforded to an
original database. I do not think that the maps per se result in an
independent distribution of the database itself*. Wikipedia must not
reproduce (except as covered by 'fair dealing') any of the depictions used
by the Government. For original depictions, ie maps created by the team, on
the contrary, it will be the Government infringing on Wikipedia's license,
if it then uses (ie not 'fair dealing') any of the map forms on Wikipedia.

*It is important, therefore, that the maps, even if depicted dynamically, do
not result in being able to extract the database itself. I know this might
contradict my previous stand that a temporally dynamic map would be very
valuable, and probably much more useful than the CA website, in some
circumstances, but perhaps some care could be taken to prevent reverse
analysis of the map.

Finally, I think we can perhaps look at Sec 17 (d) and (dd), as to whether
data gathered by the Government constitutes a copyrightable work. I rather
think that only the 'forms' in which that data is displayed/published can be
considered a copyrightable work under the Act, and not the work undertaken
in gathering the data. When you read the sections relating to architectural
works, it seems very clear that only the finished artistic form can be

I was thinking (as a last resort) of a public challenge (again, something
that only the WMI chapter might choose to consider) of the implicit
assumption that publicly paid for works can be 'privately' copyrighted by
the Government, but really, I think we do not even need to go there. Since
it has already been published, I cannot see anything else fundamentally
wrong with the claimed copyright that Abhilash quoted, but I put it that it
does not and cannot mean that creating maps independently on Wikipedia,
using the same data in whole or in combination with other data, can be
considered an infringement.

> Thank you.
> Best,
> Gautam
> ________
> http://social.prathambooks.org/
> On 8 June 2011 05:17, Vickram Crishna <vvcris...@radiophony.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Gautam John <gau...@prathambooks.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 8 June 2011 01:03, Vickram Crishna <vvcris...@radiophony.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> My reading is that the Census Authority is very much a part of
> >> government. A question that I have been thinking about is whether
> >> census data (in the raw form and not the presentation) is capable of
> >> being copyrighted.
> >>
> >
> > Aside from the supposition that the raw data is not in fact copyrightable
> in
> > the first place, which is probably true, even if never tested, the law
> > clearly provides for grant of permission for data to be represented in
> > another form, such as sound or visual forms. It seems clear that the
> > provisions of copyright (the sections are too tediously long and legally
> > worded to reproduce here) are precisely applicable only to the form in
> which
> > the information is presented by the author(s). Moreover, if the
> presentation
> > of census data as published by the CA is in fact taken to be a design
> form
> > as defined by the Design Act 1911 (but to be frank I haven't looked at
> what
> > that creature is), then the copyright ceases as soon as 50 copies are
> > circulated, which has obviously already happened if the data is online.
> > I believe that mapped data represents precisely such alternate forms,
> > especially if it is dynamically presented (but even if it is not). Making
> it
> > dynamic is of course a highly useful form, one that I do not believe the
> > census authority has yet conceived. The census authority cannot refuse
> > permission for such presentation. If they do not publish the information
> as
> > is planned by our colleagues, then their copyright effectively lapses in
> any
> > case, for which proof an advertisement saying that (ie that no mapped
> data
> > as has been proposed has been published) must be published in a popular
> > newspaper (in English newspaper, for English language mapping, vernacular
> > for vernacular mapping). Unfortunately, it says nothing (that I can find)
> > about a public announcement on the Net, so maybe this advertisement stuff
> in
> > newspapers is the only path.
> > It seems that one must apply in the prescribed form for licensing
> > permission, but also note that it is not possible to refuse permission
> for
> > such applications, if the end use is scientific research or educational,
> and
> > also for non-commercial purposes, provided the end use is in the form of
> a
> > translation. However, this permission is only automatic after 3 and 7
> years
> > (subject to relevant conditions) from the date of first publication. Even
> > here, I put it that the date of first publication is the date when the
> first
> > Census was published, and not the current census. I think that would take
> it
> > back to the early 20th century, and perhaps that might also mean that the
> > government does not (heh, heh) in fact have the right to exclusive
> copyright
> > of census data (even for the 'upgraded' 60 year copyright).
> > The relevant clauses are:
> > 1. Specificity: Sec 14
> > 2. Design: Sec 15(2)
> > 3. Government ownership: Sec 17(d) and (dd)
> > 4. Compulsory licensing: Sec 31 (note that the RoC may assign some
> copyright
> > fee payable to the government, but prima facie it is unlikely they will
> do
> > so in this case)
> > 5. Automatic permission for translations etc: Sec 32 (sec 5(b)
> specifically
> > provides for 'broadcasting')
> > 6. Automatic permission for technical stuff: Sec 32A
> > 7. Right to broadcast: Sec 37 (worth checking!)
> > 8. Automatic visual recording for teaching: Sec 39
> > 9. Possible challenge to government copyright of census data: Sec 44
> > (register of copyrights: quite possible that the census information has
> not
> > been registered under the Act, and if so makes it impossible for the
> > government to take action against any form of infringement - sec 50A
> > provides for publication of registrations in the Gazette)
> > 10. Fair use: Sec 52 a(i) etc
> > --
> > Vickram
> > Fool On The Hill
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
> > Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
> Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l

Fool On The Hill <http://communicall.wordpress.com>
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list

Reply via email to