DoBIH Update - Permission Received

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

DoBIH Update - Permission Received

Silent Spike
Starting a new thread as I noticed the old one is somehow entangled with the M1 Junction thread on the archive (see "Database of British and Irish Hills").

I have a signed copy of the CC BY 3.0 permission document, received from Chris Crocker who handles copyright and licensing issues on behalf of the DoBIH editorial team. So as far as the DoBIH is concerned, OSM may incorporate the data in their database if attribution is added as per the document.

Regarding the raised point on derived data, I had mentioned this to Chris in our correspondence and he first explained:

I don't believe you need any other permissions to use data from the DoBIH. OS maps, being creative works, are subject to Crown copyright and OS requires an acknowledgement for their reuse, but I have always understood that heights and grid references are scientific fact and as such are not copyrightable. Certainly there are hundreds of commercial publications in the hillwaking world that tabulate such data. None of those that I've read do more than mention OS maps as the source of their data. The OS data we use is derived from the maps on geograph.org.uk which gives OS mapping at all scales from 1:250,000 to 1:10,000. According to the site the Geograph maps are licensed under the OS OpenSpace Developer Agreement. I note that your Contributors page credits Ordnance Survey OpenData. Other heights and grid references are derived from the Environmental Agency's LIDAR surveys which are freely available on the DEFRA platform, from detailed hill surveys conducted by ourselves and third parties who supply data to us, and from numerous walkers who submit 10-figure grid references (these are responsible for over 60% of summit GRs).

 Later sharing some more insight on the subject:

There is greater clarity in the more litigious US, where it has been established in US copyright law that most data are considered "facts", i.e. belonging to the domain of knowledge (a public benefit), and therefore not copyrightable. This was clarified in an addendum that reads “In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” The effort in obtaining the data is irrelevant. In essence, observational and experimental data are “facts” that are free to be shared and reused without copyright restriction. The only data that are copyrightable are those containing what the US calls expressive choice, such as photographs, drawings, graphs or visualisations (but you would be free to make your own drawing from a photograph or a map, as Wainwright did). There is nothing to contradict this in the UK Copyright and Patents Act, which specifies "Any literary, dramatic, design, musical or artistic work". The requirement in both the US and Europe is creativity. So the way data is structured (e.g. the grouping of hills into Catchments and Watersheds in the DoBIH) might be copyrightable.

Database right, which is applicable to the DoBIH in the EU, is something different. It protects the structure of a database, provided there is sufficient intellectual creativity (dumping data into a spreadsheet is not enough!), but not on its own the data inside it. However database right protects against the abstaction of a substantial proportion of a database without permission.

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DoBIH Update - Permission Received

David Woolley
On 23/02/2019 16:05, Silent Spike wrote:
> but I have always understood that heights and grid references are
> scientific fact and as such are not copyrightable.

There is explicit legislation in the UK that establishes database rights
and it is actually those, rather than copyrights, that are the main
issue for open mapping.

<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/part/III/made>

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DoBIH Update - Permission Received

Adam Snape
Hi,

Quite! You'll notice the Geograph link to the OS API explicitly states that the OS claims both copyright and database rights.

There also seems to be some confusion about OS licensing. Being included in the OS OpenSpace API (a free - as in beer - mapping API)  does not mean that a map is open licenced. For example the1:50K 'Landranger' scale maps are included despite definitely not being Open Data, so I'm reasonabley sure that this dataset contains some unquantifiable degree of data derived from a non-OSM compatible source.

Most of the heights should be derivable from OS Open Data mapping layers, either the general purpose raster maps at various scales or the specialist OS Terrain 50. Now I guess it could be argued that this means that the OS would be unlikely to care too much about this information, but as OSMs approach to is to be beyond reproach regarding such issues why don't we just use the OpenData datasets that are available to us?

Kind regards,

Adam



On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 19:08, David Woolley <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 23/02/2019 16:05, Silent Spike wrote:
> but I have always understood that heights and grid references are
> scientific fact and as such are not copyrightable.

There is explicit legislation in the UK that establishes database rights
and it is actually those, rather than copyrights, that are the main
issue for open mapping.

<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/3032/part/III/made>

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DoBIH Update - Permission Received

Andy Townsend
On 23/02/2019 23:04, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Most of the heights should be derivable from OS Open Data mapping layers

... or from out of copyright OS data.  Hills don't change their height
much over a human timescale.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DoBIH Update - Permission Received

Steven Horner
I would think it would be the actual surveyed heights and exact locations that would be the most use for OSM. Could we not use only the ones that have been surveyed in the DoBH data, then this could not be claimed to be Ordnance Surveys data.

Regards,
Steven

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 12:14 AM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 23/02/2019 23:04, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Most of the heights should be derivable from OS Open Data mapping layers

... or from out of copyright OS data.  Hills don't change their height
much over a human timescale.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DoBIH Update - Permission Received

Silent Spike
Yes I think we could establish which entries are suitable for use (i.e. those with an entry in the "survey" field of the database) and note this guideline on the wiki under third party data here. Perhaps introduce a standard of tagging "source=DoBIH" where the data has been used.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:29 AM Steven Horner <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would think it would be the actual surveyed heights and exact locations that would be the most use for OSM. Could we not use only the ones that have been surveyed in the DoBH data, then this could not be claimed to be Ordnance Surveys data.

Regards,
Steven

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 12:14 AM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 23/02/2019 23:04, Adam Snape wrote:
>
> Most of the heights should be derivable from OS Open Data mapping layers

... or from out of copyright OS data.  Hills don't change their height
much over a human timescale.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb