Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Maybe (if I answered that I'd really be giving legal advice). But if you took 10 different lists of 50 co-ordinates and put them in one list, then picked the 20 or so that you find interesting from that big list (maybe even reducing the number of significant digits in the coordinates first), it might be less likely to be a derivative (I still would feel uncomfortable giving a direct yes or no answer, though).
And if 20 different people working independently each pick one co-ordinate, that might not constitute copying or preparation of a derivative.
Between copying one and copying the whole list, it's pretty grey area. Even copying the whole list is grey area.
In this case, it's not necessarily a question of "lists" per se. On the original website, each monolithic site is a subpage, and has a GPS coordinate amongst other info. In the wikipedia article, we have a few different sites listed, not as a "list" but sorted by type, with text and so forth. I would simply want to add the relevant coordinates (if useful) for those sites that we already have listed.
Yeah, it does seem like pretty reasonable research doesn't it. Even if they would complain that they went to all the effort of looking up the coordinates on a map.
In other words the selection was made before the source of GPS co-ordinates was consulted. That would point strongly in favour of public domain information.
Ec