[Geowanking] neighborhood database?
ian at urbanmapping.com
Mon Sep 17 08:19:39 PDT 2007
Chris is sooooo right. I don't mean to be be contrarian, but just because
somebody says terms are terms, doesn't mean they are legally valid.
Statutory law my trump T&Cs. In the case of derivative/transformative works,
there simply have not been lawsuits in this area, and that's where the
rubber meets the road. Does this mean that Navteq's, OS's and the businesses
of other geodata providers is at risk? Not quite, but it indicates that some
info may not be protectable under the law. The problem as Steve Coast of OSM
knows all too well, is that you need to be sued to make this matter, and the
plaintiff will try and prove harm. But will ShapeWiki et al be able to
defend itself against the likes of Google? Methinks not, hence they'll
either comply with the T&Cs or take down at a C&D (the next step) or then
I don't mean to say trample over terms without concern, but private parties
frequently do what legislation cannot/does not do. This is an area that's
ripe for debate and challenge, but existing data providers control the power
in the relationship and have no reason to invite change. However....if (say)
Google were to purchase Navteq (as was rumored this summer), one could see
them opening up (some of) the Navteq db. This would kill the existing Navteq
business model, but not that of Google's.
On 9/17/07, Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt at metacarta.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:04:35AM +0100, Nick Black wrote:
> > On 9/16/07, Brandon Martin-Anderson <badhill at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hey Anselm,
> > >
> > > There's ShapeWiki. It's not complete or authoritative, but that's part
> > > the charm.
> > Deriving works from ShapeWiki also infringes the copyright of the data
> > providers and breaches Google's T&Cs.
> According to who?
> Drawing lines on top of a map is possibly not a derivative work, but
> instead a transformative work. (Especially if they're drawn over
> satellite, but possibly even if they're drawn over roads.) Additionally,
> in some countries there is no protection of database rights... so
> deriving data from something that is simply factual isn't violating the
> copyright of that work.
> I'm not syaing "Deriving works from Shapewiki doesn't infringe any
> copyrights" -- but instead saying "It *may* not". Anyone who is
> concerned about it may want to spend the time to consult a lawyer in
> your jurisdiction ... although, based on past experience, it's possible
> they'll tell you "It *may* not." as well -- and charge you $$ for the
> experience :)
> Christopher Schmidt
> Geowanking mailing list
> Geowanking at lists.burri.to
Ian White :: Urban Mapping, Inc.
690 Fifth Street Suite 200 :: San Francisco CA 94107
T.415.946.8170 :: F.866.385.8266 :: urbanmapping.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Geowanking