[Geowanking] Flickrs WOE stuff
punk.kish at gmail.com
Thu Nov 6 20:15:07 PST 2008
On 11/6/08, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> On 6 Nov 2008, at 19:59, P Kishor wrote:
> > So, it could be argued that -- "polygons from either OSM or
> > TeleAtlas/NavTeq data; the geocoded photos that were just placed on a
> > map... from the map; the polygons from that set of points.. " -- at
> > each stage, the successive creation is deriving only the location. The
> > location itself is fact and is thus not copyrightable per 17, 102 (b).
> No... it's deriving a set of locations, not a single one.
so, what is the problem with that? Is a set of facts any less factual
than a single fact?
> Because if we follow your argument then it would be cool for me to derive
> the intersections (locations) and vectors for all the streets on a map.
> They're facts too right?
*if* you follow my argument, then yes, it would be cool for you to
derive the locations from the streets on a map. What you couldn't do
is copy the colors, the layout, the fonts, and other comehitherto
stuff that would be considered creative expression.
Of course, since IANAL, and neither are you, it may be best to hire
one before setting off on a sue-worthy venture.
> Sweat of the brow and database directive kick in.
Totally different argument.
Puneet Kishor http://punkish.eidesis.org/
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/
Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo) http://www.osgeo.org/
Geowanking mailing list
Geowanking at geowanking.org
More information about the Geowanking