<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [Aust-NZ] OSM Licensing - [was Fwd: RE: Aust-NZ Digest, Vol 36, Issue 8] [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Robert,<BR>
<BR>
There was a study several years ago that from memory found that a database could potentially be subject to copyright. I recall that they were particularly looking at UK Ordnance Survey data.<BR>
<BR>
Sorry I haven’t the time to go searching for the link at this time. Perhaps someone else has a url.<BR>
<BR>
Part of the problem is that we are working in a global community with differing laws on IP in respective countries (and hence differing understanding of the issues).<BR>
<BR>
Bruce<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 8/09/10 8:01 AM, "Robert Coup" <<a href="robert.coup@koordinates.com">robert.coup@koordinates.com</a>> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>Hi Simon,<BR>
<BR>
(CCing to the list)<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Simon Cropper <<a href="scropper@botanicusaustralia.com.au">scropper@botanicusaustralia.com.au</a>> wrote:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'>On Monday 06 September 2010 11:38:38 am you wrote:<BR>
> Nobody is arguing with that. It's just that CC licenses and particularly<BR>
> CC-BY-SA don't mean what's "on the cover" with respect to datasets.<BR>
> Creative Commons themselves say they shouldn't be used.<BR>
<BR>
Robert,<BR>
<BR>
After many years of publishing books, reports and data, both in traditional<BR>
paper-based form and electronically, it has become apparent to me that most<BR>
people do not think that much about copyright or intellectual property.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
I agree! in the past this would have been ignored entirely. The number of people/organisations I speak to about data where the sentiment is "just use it" and you get a blank look when asking about what license it's available under....<BR>
<BR>
However, I think people are becoming more aware of the issues. There still seems to be an anti-commercial sentiment in some sectors. The problem is, commercial covers nearly anything.<BR>
<BR>
Arguably a researcher working on a project partially funded by a company is commercial, as is a lone developer who builds a mashup and has some Google ads on the website. <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
I mention this because I recently pointed out to people publishing educational<BR>
material in OSGeo that despite stating that they release 'their' document<BR>
under creative commons the data used and images presented, and the data the<BR>
authors pointed the reader to in order to reproduce a method illustrated in a<BR>
tutorial were all covered by restrictive licenses conditions. In other words<BR>
not all elements of the published work were covered by the license specified.<BR>
So despite an author releasing work as a CC-BY-SA, derived works were<BR>
impossible to create as the rights to use, share or reproduce the underlying<BR>
data, images, etc had not been obtained.<BR>
<BR>
This issue of copyright or access/usable rights associated with 'components'<BR>
of a work is particularly important and is rarely addressed.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
Yep. I think that'll be next on the awareness list after the larger "work". Already you're seeing news media getting pulled up heavily around using citizen photos from twitpic/etc without attribution.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
It would be valuable if groups, like Creative Commons group, created an<BR>
interactive key that (1) identified copyrightable/licensable elements of a<BR>
work, then (2) pointed the publisher to the relevant type of licenses<BR>
available.<BR>
<BR>
In relation to the above mentioned license change. What remains ambiguous to<BR>
me is what is actually meant by data or databases. Not so much the full blown<BR>
relational databases (i.e. fields names, query forms, table relationships,<BR>
coupled with data) as this is obvious but rather the smaller more unusual<BR>
datasets.<BR>
<BR>
For example...<BR>
1. Data stored in a table in a report.<BR>
2. Attribute data stored in shapefiles (including field names and codes)<BR>
3. Vector data or raster data<BR>
3. Aerial Photography<BR>
4. Any derived images or maps created with the this data<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
It's definitely designed to cover attribute data & vector data. Maps created with it aren't covered by the license - they'd be CC-BY-SA for the OSM ones, and I can't speak to the rest.<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
It is unclear to me whether this type of data would be covered by the Open<BR>
database License. Better explanation of what is meant by 'data' with good<BR>
examples would be invaluable in helping people understand whether this new<BR>
license is relevant to them.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:11pt'><BR>
To be honest, I'm not sure what level of applicability there is to other databases/projects - I haven't looked. Creative Commons/Science Commons have gone down the path of only recommending Public Domain for datasets. Which is fair enough, but does leave the share-alike space with nothing.<BR>
<BR>
It would be nice to see a range of content/data licenses presented concisely, with plain-language interpretations so people can make a good decision about what is the right license for them. <BR>
<BR>
Rob :)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>