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

[Tomislav Hengl]

Hi Barry,

Thanks for reminding me about the "you can not copyright facts" 
principle 
(http://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/are_facts_copyrighted). 
So the point measured values can be considered to be, in fact, - facts.

So here is one more time the question to everyone (I am sure some of you 
have experienced these issues in practice):

1. A point data set has a restrictive license.
2. From this point data you can derive predictions - these predictions 
can not be used to re-produce point locations and values, hence the 
source is untraceable.
3. Does this derivative work (spatial prediction) has to follow the same 
data license as used for the point data, or this a new data sets for 
which you can set license freely.

Some basic principles to consider:

1. One can not copyright facts 
(http://www.newmediarights.org/business_models/artist/are_facts_copyrighted) 
but facts can be protected using e.g. the "trade secret" laws.
2. If one would digitize content from Google Earth / maps imagery i.e. 
digitize polygon maps representing geomorphology without a permission 
from Google this would mean breaking of the Legal Notices 
(http://www.google.com/help/legalnotices_maps.html) - has anyone bee 
prosecuted for this ever?
3. "The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be 
substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus 
protected by copyright" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work) 
hence it is OK to create derivative works as long as one can prove that 
there are "substantial" new elements. Do spatial predictions from points 
fall into this category?

thank you!

T. Hengl


On 27-11-2014 16:38, Barry Rowlingson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Edzer Pebesma
> <edzer.pebesma at uni-muenster.de> wrote:
>> Tom, in your example below, x contains the kriging variance; points with
>> zero kriging variance must be observation locations, with the predicted
>> value equal to the observation.
>>
>> In case the nugget in m would have been replaced by a measurement error
>> component (Err in m and m1 below), you would not have this effect, and
>> also have no discontinuity in the interpolated surface at observation
>> locations:
>
>   Now all that is going to be fun to explain to a judge and jury.
>
>   Suppose you took all the notes of a Bach fugue as X=time, Y=pitch,
> and interpolated them in time, then created a new piece using the
> interpolation prediction at time points between the notes, would this
> be a derivative work?
>
> Yes, I think: "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more
> preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement,
> dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound
> recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other
> form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."
> [Wikipedia, where I get all my legal advice from] - they key word
> being "transformed".
>
> But does a dataset count as a "work" here? It is supposedly a set of
> measurements of "the truth", rather than something that is a creative
> work. A random australian web site that comes up tops in a google
> search says:
>
> Use of a Copyright Licence
>
> A dataset may attract copyright protection (as a literary work), if it
> meets certain threshold criteria of human authorship, originality, or
> creativity, for example. On that basis, significant quantities of
> research data will attract copyright protection. As such, it may not
> be reused by researchers (or anyone else) without permission.
> [http://ands.org.au/guides/copyright-and-data-awareness.html]
>
>   I suspect the permission to make derivative works has to be stated
> when the dataset gives usage permission.
>
> Minefield.
>
> Barry
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-Geo mailing list
> R-sig-Geo at r-project.org
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-geo
>