Sorry. they are facts and therefore NOT copyrightable. On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, James Alexander <jameso...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big > issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many > people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The > locations themselves is what we have decided are facts and therefore > copyrightable and I would think that openstreetmap should both be able to > use those and should use those. I don't totally understand the thought > process behind not allowing them to use actual geo locations from wikipedia. > > James Alexander > james.alexan...@rochester.edu > jameso...@gmail.com > 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one > :) > > > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjes...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> (This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) >> >> Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated >> significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a >> map, particularly one that involves "inherent pictorial or photographic >> nature". >> >> "It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject >> matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about >> geographic relationships, and the "accuracy" of this presentation, with its >> utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most >> other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into >> pictorial or graphic form.... Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, >> and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, >> maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations.... A map >> does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is >> central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial >> form central to its nature." >> >> See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). >> http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 >> >> >> I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but >> a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is "absurdity" is >> itself wrong. >> >> -Dan >> >> >> On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> >> > In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >> > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: >> > >> > >> >> In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items >> >> based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from >> >> geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what >> >> is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. >> >> Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted >> material.>> >> > >> > Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and >> > latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position" >> is >> > copyrightable? >> > >> > Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the >> map, >> > as an entirety is copyrightable. >> > >> > W.J. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > foundation-l mailing list >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
