[Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works

Fri Apr 2 07:15:49 UTC 2010

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk at eunet.rs> wrote:
> Дана Thursday 01 April 2010 20:30:10 Aude написа:
>> There are differences in how data (incl.    map data) is treated under
>> US law and how UK/European law treat data and data collections/databases
>>
>> Wikipedia is operates under US copyright law, w/ servers and the
>> foundation US based (not sure how the Amsterdam servers fit under
>> laws). In the US, facts such as listings in the phone book and
>> geocoordinates are not copyrightable.  I think wikipedians deriving
>> these facts from google maps or google earth is okay under us law
>>
>> On the otherhand, openstreetmap is based in the uk with servers in
>> London, and operates under uk/european law.  I know that databases and
>> data collections do get some protection under law there.  Thus
>> openstreetmap regards databases of coordinates (eg google) as having
>> protection and disallows google maps as a source for osm
>>
>> Although deriving geocoordinates from google maps for wikipedia (under
>> us law) is okay, I would prefer not doing so and use osm, NASA
>
> This is so wrong on several levels. Databases can be copyrighted under US law,
> facts are not copyrighted under UK law, an image is not a database, deriving
> coordinates from Google Maps is OK under other laws and so on.

geni writes:

> Except it doesn't stop at geocoordinates.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Formula_One_circuits_maps
>
> Is for the most part directly traced from various google earth satellite pics.

I have the impression that the rules of thumb used to extract data
from maps on both projects are just that -- rule of thumb, based on
the collective impressions of, for instance, what is an appropriate
level of reverence for a restrictive TOS that claims more than
national laws allow.

Someone on the OSM threads commented that they make an effort to be
'whiter than white' when it comes to observing all possible legal
nuances.  And it occurs to me that OSM at its heart is much more
deeply concerned with reuse and guaranteeing zero hassles for reusers
than Wikimedia currently is.  [can you name a significant published
work that draws heavily from a Wikimedia project, other than those
produced by Wikipedians that consist entirely of an edited selection
of Wikipedia articles?]  Commons, for instance, is careful with the
licenses it accepts, but not so explicit in how it validates licenses
as to make it easy for physical publishers to use Commons photos in
mass-produced books.

It would be good to have a Project-neutral place to discuss copyright
and reuse policies across free knowledge projects, not only Wikimedia
projects.  This mailing list is not the place.   Perhaps the Meta-wiki
is acceptable for this, though other suggestions are welcome; Meta
already sees its share of discussion of potential or parallel efforts
to expand free knowledge in various directions.

SJ