-----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