[R-sig-Geo] Question about derivative work - what is the license for map derived using e.g. spatial "predict" function?

[Forrest Stevens]

This is indeed a sticky question, and probably hard to generalize across
specific legal situations, but I'm sure the original data holder's view
would be that without access to the original points layer there's no way
you could produce your interpolation. Therefore, your output constitutes a
derivative work.

I think of it like classifying data that you extract in some way from
Google Earth, which is against their Terms of Service. Even if you produced
a binary, classified land cover dataset from a screen capture, yielding a
situation like you describe, impossible to recreate the original
aerial/satellite imagery from, you'd still legally be violating the TOS and
couldn't distribute your classified data.

Interested to hear other's thoughts on it though,
Forrest


On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 8:37 AM Tomislav Hengl <hengl at spatial-analyst.net>
wrote:

>
> Dear list,
>
> I have a question about licensing the data that is produced by spatial
> prediction from point data. My ideas is that a map produced by using
> e.g. geostatistics from point data is a new data product and as such
> does not falls under the regulations of the original license used for
> the point data (so if the license for the point data is restrictive, the
> license for the output maps does not have to respect this). Consider for
> example:
>
> R> library(gstat)
> R> library(sp)
> R> demo(meuse, echo=FALSE)
> R> m <- vgm(.59, "Sph", 874, .04)
> R> x <- krige(log(zinc)~1, meuse, meuse.grid, model = m)
>
> The produced map "x" can be considered a new data product. There is
> absolutely no way that one could reproduce the original input points
> from this map, hence it should be considered "a non-derivative work".
> Only if we would derive a map using interpolation technique that allows
> re-constructions of points (e.g. Thiessen polygons) the license would
> need to be respected.
>
> Or am I mistaken? (I know this is a type of a question for lawyers in
> fact, but any experience / opinion you have is welcome)
>
> http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/derivative-work.html
>
> "To qualify as a derivative work, the derivative must use a substantial
> amount of the prior work’s expression. How much? Enough so that the
> average person would conclude that it had been based on or adapted from
> the prior work"
>
> thank you,
>
> --
> T. (Tom) Hengl
> Researcher @ ISRIC - World Soil Information
> Url: http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Persons/dr.-T-Tom-Hengl.htm
> Network: http://profiles.google.com/tom.hengl
> Publications: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2oYU7S8AAAAJ
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-Geo mailing list
> R-sig-Geo at r-project.org
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]