-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Dan Rosenthal 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
If I'm not mistaken, the thread is not about the copyrightability of
maps themselves, but the copyrightability of location data pertaining
to digital maps, i.e. the very "non-pictoral fact compilations"
mentioned in the statement you provided.
- --
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkuzrj8ACgkQyQg4JSymDYlH7QCgr1DgqtHsBTSwjTDXI9OqB+qS
Y3UAn0a3klujZC32BwatqspcFE8WxOjP
=yBeQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----