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In case the nugget in m would have been replaced by a measurement error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