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

[Jochen Albrecht]

What makes Tomislav's question really hard to answer is that there is no
*one* copyright law. Just look at the long list of exceptions in the Google
legal notices that he provided. My experience is only with the United
States and here the matter is relatively clear (in spite of Hollywood's
extreme provisions).
1. As mentioned, facts are not copyrightable; so if you have just plain
data without any create packaging/mapping/analysis then these are not
protected - regardless of what the vendor may claim (and some vendor are
very creative with their claims).
2. Your derivation is your work and does therefore not inherit any
copyright either- even if the original was copyrighted, say because of the
packaging. The Google Earth digitization is a case here. Possibly not in
Israel, but here in the U.S. you may freely digitize , i.e., create new
data - the boundaries that you are digitizing are not part of the source
material but your (creative) interpretation. You may, however, not copy;
that is, you may not re-assemble the tiles.
3. The notions of original vs. derivative are every once in a while
contested in court but so far, the courts have usually sided with the
defense.
There are only two authors in our field that have published on this topic
that I am aware off. Check out either Onsrud or Cho for a long list of
cases.
Unless you find a way to make millions of your work (which would interest
me immensely) you are unlikely to be prosecuted across national boundaries
because the claimant's effort would not be worth it.
Cheers,
     Jochen

Dr. Jochen Albrecht
Computational and Theoretical Geography
HN 1030
Hunter College CUNY
695 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10065

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Tomislav Hengl <hengl at spatial-analyst.net>
wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]]