[Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

[James Alexander]

Sorry. they are facts and therefore NOT copyrightable.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, James Alexander <jamesofur at 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.alexander at rochester.edu
> jamesofur at 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 <swatjester at 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, WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> > jamesmikedupont at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>