Hi all, This site http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=9179 says "Do not re-post this data on other web sites without permission of the submitter." My question is, are GPS coords subject to copyright? Are we not entitled to republish interesting coords on the basis that they are "information" rather than an "expression"?
(relevant to [[Carnac stones]] btw)
Steve
On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, This site http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=9179 says "Do not re-post this data on other web sites without permission of the submitter." My question is, are GPS coords subject to copyright? Are we not entitled to republish interesting coords on the basis that they are "information" rather than an "expression"?
One GPS coordinate isn't subject to copyright. A collection of ones that someone finds interesting probably is.
Anthony
On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
One GPS coordinate isn't subject to copyright. A collection of ones that someone finds interesting probably is.
What if I cherry pick from their list of 50 co-ordinates the 20 or so that *I* find interesting. Is that a derivative work?
Steve
On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
One GPS coordinate isn't subject to copyright. A collection of ones that someone finds interesting probably is.
What if I cherry pick from their list of 50 co-ordinates the 20 or so that *I* find interesting. Is that a derivative work?
Steve
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.
Anthony
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.
Steve
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
On 5/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
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.
Ok, well I have now included some GPS information, and cited the site as a source. The bigger question is now how to include it in a non-ugly way. :)
(A further argument against their creative collection idea would be that apparently people self-select sites to add. That is, random visitors can add the information - so who would own the copyright anyway?)
Steve
On 5/12/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
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.
Sounds right to me. I was basing my answer on the selection being the copyrighted aspect. If the selection has already been made through some other mechanism which avoids copyright infringement, then the collection copyright doesn't matter.
Anthony
I'm sure a lawyer such as Mr. Abramson or a font of knowledge such as Mr. Smith can confirm this, but it is my understanding that lists of factual information are ineligible for copyright; a work must be an "original work of authorship." Phone books, for instance, are not eligible for copyright. I would imagine this list falls under the same blanket of ineligibility (an insecurity blanket?).
Ben
On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/11/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, This site http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=9179 says "Do not re-post this data on other web sites without permission of the submitter." My question is, are GPS coords subject to copyright? Are we not entitled to republish interesting coords on the basis that they are "information" rather than an "expression"?
One GPS coordinate isn't subject to copyright. A collection of ones that someone finds interesting probably is.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/11/06, Ben Lowe ben.lowe@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure a lawyer such as Mr. Abramson or a font of knowledge such as Mr. Smith can confirm this, but it is my understanding that lists of factual information are ineligible for copyright; a work must be an "original work of authorship." Phone books, for instance, are not eligible for copyright. I would imagine this list falls under the same blanket of ineligibility (an insecurity blanket?).
Ben
Phone books are not eligible for copyright because there is no creativity involved in choosing which phone numbers go in (everyone in a city) or what way they are arranged (alphabetical order). If a collection of facts contains a creative selection or arrangement, it is copyrightable.
All of this is based on US law.
Anthony
On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If a collection of facts contains a creative selection or arrangement, it is copyrightable.
The selection or arrangement of those facts is, more precisely. The individual facts themselves are still not protected.
-Matt
Matt Brown wrote:
On 5/11/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
If a collection of facts contains a creative selection or arrangement, it is copyrightable.
The selection or arrangement of those facts is, more precisely. The individual facts themselves are still not protected.
Right. And as, in this case, we are picking our own selection from the list and rearranging it completely, I see no reason to assume we'd be infringing on anyone's copyright.
Even if we were reproducing all the coordinates on the list, I'd still see no problem as long as we weren't basing our criteria of inclusion for such coordinates on them being included on that particular list.
On 11/05/06, Ben Lowe ben.lowe@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure a lawyer such as Mr. Abramson or a font of knowledge such as Mr. Smith can confirm this, but it is my understanding that lists of factual information are ineligible for copyright; a work must be an "original work of authorship." Phone books, for instance, are not eligible for copyright. I would imagine this list falls under the same blanket of ineligibility (an insecurity blanket?).
Lists of factual information *may* be ineligible for copyright *in the United States* in circumstances where they are *definitely not creative*.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no precedent as to whether or not this applies to material which was created and copyrighted in a different jurisdiction; it's tempting to say that the ruling essentially annuls noncreative foreign copyrights, but that would seem to conflict (at the very least) with the spirit of a whole host of copyright treaties. And the site in question is British, with less lenient positions on what is the minimum level of creativity...
Just a note of caution.
On 5/11/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Lists of factual information *may* be ineligible for copyright *in the United States* in circumstances where they are *definitely not creative*.
There is, to the best of my knowledge, no precedent as to whether or not this applies to material which was created and copyrighted in a different jurisdiction; it's tempting to say that the ruling essentially annuls noncreative foreign copyrights, but that would seem to conflict (at the very least) with the spirit of a whole host of copyright treaties. And the site in question is British, with less lenient positions on what is the minimum level of creativity...
Just a note of caution.
There *is* a precedent. "Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp. in the Southern District of New York. In that case, the court initially misapplied British law to determine whether the subject matter met the originality requirement for copyright protection. Upon reconsideration, the court "corrected" itself by conceding that U.S. law governed the originality issue." http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001-all/yu-2001-04-all.html
Feist is a United States Supreme Court ruling based on the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is not trumped by any copyright treaty nor is it trumped by any foreign law, and the fact that the material was created in a different jurisdiction is irrelevant. This is backed up by a whole host of US court rulings.
Anthony
Aggers has just referred those listeners who wish to know what a doosra is to the wikipedia entry. He read out the web address in that BBC cricket commentary way, h-t-t-p and so on, which led Giles to comment that it was an awful lot of troub;le, but there you go. James sent the suggestion in, I'm not sure if that's one of our James' or not, but there it is. A wikipedia mention on Test Match Special, Five Live Sports Xtra, about 12:17 pm BST. If there's somewhere where we keep track of such mentions, someone might want to note it.
Steve Block
On 5/12/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Aggers has just referred those listeners who wish to know what a doosra is to the wikipedia entry. He read out the web address in that BBC cricket commentary way, h-t-t-p and so on, which led Giles to comment
Yes, I wish the developers of the web had gone to more trouble to make http:// invisible to users, and to discourage the use of www. etc. And I'm also amazed how many companies seem unaware that the www. on the front of their names is redundant. Their advertising would be snappier with just "tcl.fr" rather than "www.tcl.fr" for instance.
that it was an awful lot of troub;le, but there you go. James sent the suggestion in, I'm not sure if that's one of our James' or not, but there it is. A wikipedia mention on Test Match Special, Five Live Sports Xtra, about 12:17 pm BST. If there's somewhere where we keep track of such mentions, someone might want to note it.
The talk page for the article is usually the place, though personally I find such mentions a bit tacky.
Steve
Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
On 5/12/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Aggers has just referred those listeners who wish to know what a doosra is to the wikipedia entry. He read out the web address in that BBC cricket commentary way, h-t-t-p and so on, which led Giles to comment
Yes, I wish the developers of the web had gone to more trouble to make http:// invisible to users, and to discourage the use of www. etc. And I'm also amazed how many companies seem unaware that the www. on the front of their names is redundant. Their advertising would be snappier with just "tcl.fr" rather than "www.tcl.fr" for instance.
Sadly this is not always the case: it is dependent entirely on whether the address without the "www" has been set up to redirect to that with.
I have often attempted to go to something like "http://example.com" only to be redirected to a search page where the first item would be "http://www.example.com".
For the avoidance of doubt, yes I agree it would be much easier if this were so...having said which, it is not compulsory that the address start with "www": take "en.wikipedia.org" for example.
HTH HAND
On 5/12/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly this is not always the case: it is dependent entirely on whether the address without the "www" has been set up to redirect to that with.
Yes, I know. But it's very often the case, and even for companies that always advertise with the www.
For the avoidance of doubt, yes I agree it would be much easier if this were so...having said which, it is not compulsory that the address start with "www": take "en.wikipedia.org" for example.
Definitely a special case. :) I'm really talking about the millions of bogstandard company.com sites though.
I actually think as well that companies that attempt to publish sites that involve slashes would do better to set up redirects and advertise a version with a fake subdomain: product.company.com rather than company.com/products/product or something.
But anyway.
Steve
On 12/05/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
that it was an awful lot of troub;le, but there you go. James sent the suggestion in, I'm not sure if that's one of our James' or not, but there it is.
Come on Forrester, cough to it. You publicity whore. :)
Rob Church
On 5/12/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Aggers has just referred those listeners who wish to know what a doosra is to the wikipedia entry.
Who or what is Aggers?
On 5/12/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
Aggers has just referred those listeners who wish to know what a doosra is to the wikipedia entry.
Who or what is Aggers? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A BBC cricket commentator.
See
On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:14:05 +0100, you wrote:
Who or what is Aggers?
A cricket commentator on the wireless - specifically the BBC's Home Service, m'lud.
[[Jonathan Agnew]] to be precise. I made a redirect for you :-)
Guy (JzG)
On 5/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:14:05 +0100, you wrote:
Who or what is Aggers?
A cricket commentator on the wireless - specifically the BBC's Home Service, m'lud.
And who are "The Beatles"?
On 12/05/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:14:05 +0100, you wrote:
Who or what is Aggers?
A cricket commentator on the wireless - specifically the BBC's Home Service, m'lud.
And who are "The Beatles"?
Nobody important. :P
Rob Church
On Fri, 12 May 2006 16:59:07 +0100, you wrote:
And who are "The Beatles"?
Nobody important. :P
'''Delete''' bandcruft. Oh, wait...
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 12 May 2006 16:37:36 +0100, you wrote:
And who are "The Beatles"?
I believe the correct form of words is "a popular beat combo, m'lud"
Guy (JzG)
On 5/13/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:14:05 +0100, you wrote:
Who or what is Aggers?
A cricket commentator on the wireless - specifically the BBC's Home Service, m'lud.
And who are "The Beatles"?
Oh, that just reeks of <s>US</s> UK centric POV. Don't assume that just because you <s>Americans</s> Brits know all about someone then the rest of the world will too. Don't force your culture on me man!
On 5/13/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/13/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:14:05 +0100, you wrote:
Who or what is Aggers?
A cricket commentator on the wireless - specifically the BBC's Home Service, m'lud.
And who are "The Beatles"?
Oh, that just reeks of <s>US</s> UK centric POV. Don't assume that just because you <s>Americans</s> Brits know all about someone then the rest of the world will too. Don't force your culture on me man!
Except cricket. That's more than culture, it's life. All Americans (and other similarly deprived poor souls) should have cricket forced onto them. Makes them better people
On Sat, 13 May 2006 09:57:39 -0500, you wrote:
Except cricket. That's more than culture, it's life. All Americans (and other similarly deprived poor souls) should have cricket forced onto them. Makes them better people
I always wonder how they can take seriously any game which takes less than three days to reach a conclusion...
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 02:30:17PM +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2006 14:14:05 +0100, you wrote:
Who or what is Aggers?
A cricket commentator on the wireless - specifically the BBC's Home Service, m'lud.
[[Jonathan Agnew]] to be precise. I made a redirect for you :-)
We even have an article now explaining this kind of nickname - [[Oxford '-er']]!
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG