Open-Data Motion for Montreal
Locked
12
12
Open-Data Motion for Montreal
 
|
Bonjour à tous,
Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data in the city of Montreal. The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in Vancouver and Ottawa. We would very much appreciate your comments, alternative wording and other advice, especially around your respective areas of expertise. This version remains a rough copy. The document is presently in English to facilitate commenting by various parties across Canada, it will be circulated on Civic Access for a second round of comments and then translated in French. Deadline for 1st round of comments: Sunday, January 16th, 2010 at 11PM EST Please be sure to sign with your name. Warm regards, Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, Z,...", but we are really looking for comments on the following: AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are recommended by Montréal Ouvert. Originally created in 2007 through a workshop of concerned organizations, many jurisdictions have used them to guide their Open Data initiatives: Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is not subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege limitations. Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the value of the data. Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest range of purposes. Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated processing. Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of registration. Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has exclusive control. License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be allowed.” (Source: http://resource.org/8_principles.html) La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is declared "open" Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible to adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other formats of media; b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine readable formats. c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the XXX be tasked with developing an action plan for implementation of the above. |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> wrote:
> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret > regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be allowed > c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free re-use by > third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted except > if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. Jonathan, In Canada, there is no legal concept 'Public Domain'. And I believe that you cannot remove the copyright from something, even if you own it (but you can transfer it). You can state (i.e. license) that you allow all and any uses by all and any persons, for _most_ intents and purposes making it very Public Domain-like. But I believe the copyright remains. For example, there has been some mention in this group of how Surrey, BC is taking the lead with how open its data release is (I agree that Surrey is in the lead and is where all Canadian cities should be). However, in this forum Sam Vekemans 2010.11.16 said: "...to "Open Data" meaning truly useful content, where no restrictions are in place. (ie. Surrey, BC making their data Public Domain)". While I completely agree with his sentiment, technically (amd legally) Surrey did not put its data into the 'Public Domain', nor did they relinquish copyright. Instead, they adopted a license (Public Domain Dedication and License v1.0 http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ ) that allows almost unlimited use, by anyone, of the data Surrey is releasing under this license. >From the license: "...this waiver and licence tries to the fullest extent possible to eliminate or fully license any rights that cover this database and data." So there is a license, and copyright is retained. This license recognizes that some jurisdictions do not have 'Public Domain' and has a clause to take this into account: "3.2 Waiver of rights and claims in Copyright and Database Rights when Section 3.1 dedication inapplicable. If the dedication in Section 3.1 does not apply in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 6.4, the Rightsholder waives any rights and claims that the Rightsholder may have or acquire in the future over the Work in: a. Copyright; and b. Database Rights. To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, the above waiver of rights and claims applies worldwide and includes media and formats now known or created in the future. The Rightsholder agrees not to assert the above rights and waives the right to enforce them over the Work." So the Rightsholder still has these rights, but promises not to assert or enforce them. Again, still a license, and no 'removal' of copyright takes place. My suggestion to replace the clauses in Jonathan's text either by adopting some broad language talking about using a liberal, non-exclusive, non-restrictive license (possibly with examples) or go straight to suggesting the PDDL. I am sure the city of Montreal lawyers will not like to have a clause that asks the city to do something that is not legally possible in Canada. :-) Thanks, Glen :-) On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> wrote: > Bonjour à tous, > Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data in the > city of Montreal. The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in > Vancouver and Ottawa. We would very much appreciate your comments, > alternative wording and other advice, especially around your respective > areas of expertise. > This version remains a rough copy. > The document is presently in English to facilitate commenting by various > parties across Canada, it will be circulated on Civic Access for a second > round of comments and then translated in French. > Deadline for 1st round of comments: Sunday, January 16th, 2010 at 11PM EST > Please be sure to sign with your name. > Warm regards, > Jean-Noé, Jonathan, Michael, & Sebastien > MontrealOuvert.net > Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal > Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, Z,...", but > we are really looking for comments on the following: > AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; > To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the > following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are > recommended by Montréal Ouvert. Originally created in 2007 through a > workshop of concerned organizations, many jurisdictions have used them to > guide their Open Data initiatives: > Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is not > subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege > limitations. > Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible level > of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. > Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the value > of the data. > Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest > range of purposes. > Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated > processing. > Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of > registration. > Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has > exclusive control. > License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or > trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege > restrictions may be allowed.” > (Source: http://resource.org/8_principles.html) > > La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": > a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is declared > "open" > Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with > citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data > possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; > Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible to > adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other formats > of media; > b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine > readable formats. > c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free > re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not > copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. > > BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the XXX be tasked with developing an action plan > for implementation of the above. > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > -- - |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
Thanks Glenn! We appreciate your help on this.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Glen Newton <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> wrote: >> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret >> regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be allowed > >> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free re-use by >> third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted except >> if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. > > Jonathan, > > In Canada, there is no legal concept 'Public Domain'. > And I believe that you cannot remove the copyright from something, > even if you own it (but you can transfer it). |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by Glen Newton
Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain?
That kind of goes against everything I've learned in school and industry and what about this: For Immediate Release March 3, 2006 Toronto, ON – Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency and Creative Commons Canada, in partnership with Creative Commons Corporation in the US, today announced the development of a Canadian public domain registry. The ground- breaking project – the most comprehensive of its kind in Canada – will create an online, globally searchable catalogue of published works that are in the Canadian public domain. Respectfully submitted, Drew Mcpherson -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:29 AM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> wrote: > License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or > trade secret > regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be > allowed > c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free > re-use by > third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted > except > if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. Jonathan, In Canada, there is no legal concept 'Public Domain'. And I believe that you cannot remove the copyright from something, even if you own it (but you can transfer it). You can state (i.e. license) that you allow all and any uses by all and any persons, for _most_ intents and purposes making it very Public Domain-like. But I believe the copyright remains. For example, there has been some mention in this group of how Surrey, BC is taking the lead with how open its data release is (I agree that Surrey is in the lead and is where all Canadian cities should be). However, in this forum Sam Vekemans 2010.11.16 said: "...to "Open Data" meaning truly useful content, where no restrictions are in place. (ie. Surrey, BC making their data Public Domain)". While I completely agree with his sentiment, technically (amd legally) Surrey did not put its data into the 'Public Domain', nor did they relinquish copyright. Instead, they adopted a license (Public Domain Dedication and License v1.0 http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ ) that allows almost unlimited use, by anyone, of the data Surrey is releasing under this license. >From the license: "...this waiver and licence tries to the fullest extent possible to eliminate or fully license any rights that cover this database and data." So there is a license, and copyright is retained. This license recognizes that some jurisdictions do not have 'Public Domain' and has a clause to take this into account: "3.2 Waiver of rights and claims in Copyright and Database Rights when Section 3.1 dedication inapplicable. If the dedication in Section 3.1 does not apply in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 6.4, the Rightsholder waives any rights and claims that the Rightsholder may have or acquire in the future over the Work in: a. Copyright; and b. Database Rights. To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, the above waiver of rights and claims applies worldwide and includes media and formats now known or created in the future. The Rightsholder agrees not to assert the above rights and waives the right to enforce them over the Work." So the Rightsholder still has these rights, but promises not to assert or enforce them. Again, still a license, and no 'removal' of copyright takes place. My suggestion to replace the clauses in Jonathan's text either by adopting some broad language talking about using a liberal, non-exclusive, non-restrictive license (possibly with examples) or go straight to suggesting the PDDL. I am sure the city of Montreal lawyers will not like to have a clause that asks the city to do something that is not legally possible in Canada. :-) Thanks, Glen :-) On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> wrote: > Bonjour à tous, > Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data in > the > city of Montreal. The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in > Vancouver and Ottawa. We would very much appreciate your comments, > alternative wording and other advice, especially around your respective > areas of expertise. > This version remains a rough copy. > The document is presently in English to facilitate commenting by various > parties across Canada, it will be circulated on Civic Access for a second > round of comments and then translated in French. > Deadline for 1st round of comments: Sunday, January 16th, 2010 at 11PM EST > Please be sure to sign with your name. > Warm regards, > Jean-Noé, Jonathan, Michael, & Sebastien > MontrealOuvert.net > Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal > Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, Z,...", > but > we are really looking for comments on the following: > AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; > To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the > following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are > recommended by Montréal Ouvert. Originally created in 2007 through a > workshop of concerned organizations, many jurisdictions have used them to > guide their Open Data initiatives: > Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is > not > subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege > limitations. > Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible > level > of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. > Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the > value > of the data. > Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest > range of purposes. > Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated > processing. > Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of > registration. > Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has > exclusive control. > License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or > trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege > restrictions may be allowed.” > (Source: http://resource.org/8_principles.html) > > La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": > a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is > declared > "open" > Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with > citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data > possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; > Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible to > adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other > formats > of media; > b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine > readable formats. > c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free > re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not > copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. > > BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the XXX be tasked with developing an action > plan > for implementation of the above. > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > -- - _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
CIPPIC is currently reviewing the Public Domain license as an option for the City of Ottawa and the G4. That report should be available next week. CIPPIC also did the work on Creative Commons Canada http://www.cippic.ca/open-licensing/.
Glen; Legal is not my strength, but I do believe that cities are different than the Feds. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain? -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by Drew Mcpherson
Hi Drew,
In this context, I believe this refers to works for which the copyright has expired or for which it does not apply. See page 2 of this document: "CANADIAN PUBLIC DOMAIN FLOWCHART, Prepared by Creative Commons Canada" http://www.creativecommons.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/pdregistryca-pd_flowchart.pdf This differs from 'Public Domain' as defined in the US copyright law: "The public domain is generally defined (e.g. by the U.S. Copyright Office) as the sum of works that are not copyrighted, i.e. 1 * that were not eligible for copyright in the first place, or 2 * whose copyright has expired, or 3 * that were released into the public domain by the copyright holder." - From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain Numbers added by GNewton Public Domain (capitialized) usually refers to above. So in Canada, I believe public domain (lower case usually) refers to #1 or #2; #3 is not possible. This is why Surrey used the license it did: it could not 'release' its works into the public domain, as this mechanism does not exist in Canadian law. Note that the press release you quoted uses the lower case "Canadian public domain". But you are right: I should have been more careful in my explanation. :-) -Glen On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain? > > That kind of goes against everything I've learned in school and industry and > what about this: > > For Immediate Release > March 3, 2006 > Toronto, ON – Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency and > Creative Commons > Canada, in partnership with Creative Commons Corporation in the US, today > announced the > development of a Canadian public domain registry. The ground- breaking > project – the most > comprehensive of its kind in Canada – will create an online, globally > searchable catalogue of published > works that are in the Canadian public domain. > > > Respectfully submitted, > Drew Mcpherson > > -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:29 AM > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >> trade secret >> regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be >> allowed > >> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >> re-use by >> third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted >> except >> if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. > > Jonathan, > > In Canada, there is no legal concept 'Public Domain'. > And I believe that you cannot remove the copyright from something, > even if you own it (but you can transfer it). > You can state (i.e. license) that you allow all and any uses by all > and any persons, for _most_ intents and purposes making it very Public > Domain-like. > But I believe the copyright remains. > > For example, there has been some mention in this group of how Surrey, > BC is taking the lead with how open its data release is (I agree that > Surrey is in the lead and is where all Canadian cities should be). > However, in this forum Sam Vekemans 2010.11.16 said: "...to "Open > Data" meaning truly useful content, where no restrictions are in > place. (ie. Surrey, BC making their data Public Domain)". While I > completely agree with his sentiment, technically (amd legally) Surrey > did not put its data into the 'Public Domain', nor did they relinquish > copyright. Instead, they adopted a license (Public Domain Dedication > and License v1.0 http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ ) > that allows almost unlimited use, by anyone, of the data Surrey is > releasing under this license. > > From the license: "...this waiver and licence tries to the fullest > extent possible to eliminate or fully license any rights that cover > this database and data." > > So there is a license, and copyright is retained. > > This license recognizes that some jurisdictions do not have 'Public > Domain' and has a clause to take this into account: > > "3.2 Waiver of rights and claims in Copyright and Database Rights when > Section 3.1 dedication inapplicable. If the dedication in Section 3.1 > does not apply in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 6.4, the > Rightsholder waives any rights and claims that the Rightsholder may > have or acquire in the future over the Work in: > a. Copyright; and > b. Database Rights. > To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, the above waiver > of rights and claims applies worldwide and includes media and formats > now known or created in the future. The Rightsholder agrees not to > assert the above rights and waives the right to enforce them over the > Work." > > So the Rightsholder still has these rights, but promises not to assert > or enforce them. Again, still a license, and no 'removal' of copyright > takes place. > > My suggestion to replace the clauses in Jonathan's text either by > adopting some broad language talking about using a liberal, > non-exclusive, non-restrictive license (possibly with examples) or go > straight to suggesting the PDDL. > > I am sure the city of Montreal lawyers will not like to have a clause > that asks the city to do something that is not legally possible in > Canada. :-) > > Thanks, > Glen :-) > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> >> Bonjour à tous, >> Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data in >> the >> city of Montreal. The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in >> Vancouver and Ottawa. We would very much appreciate your comments, >> alternative wording and other advice, especially around your respective >> areas of expertise. >> This version remains a rough copy. >> The document is presently in English to facilitate commenting by various >> parties across Canada, it will be circulated on Civic Access for a second >> round of comments and then translated in French. >> Deadline for 1st round of comments: Sunday, January 16th, 2010 at 11PM EST >> Please be sure to sign with your name. >> Warm regards, >> Jean-Noé, Jonathan, Michael, & Sebastien >> MontrealOuvert.net >> Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal >> Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, Z,...", >> but >> we are really looking for comments on the following: >> AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; >> To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the >> following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are >> recommended by Montréal Ouvert. Originally created in 2007 through a >> workshop of concerned organizations, many jurisdictions have used them to >> guide their Open Data initiatives: >> Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is >> not >> subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege >> limitations. >> Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible >> level >> of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. >> Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the >> value >> of the data. >> Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest >> range of purposes. >> Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated >> processing. >> Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of >> registration. >> Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has >> exclusive control. >> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >> trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege >> restrictions may be allowed.” >> (Source: http://resource.org/8_principles.html) >> >> La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": >> a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is >> declared >> "open" >> Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with >> citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data >> possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; >> Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible to >> adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other >> formats >> of media; >> b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine >> readable formats. >> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >> re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not >> copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >> >> BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the XXX be tasked with developing an action >> plan >> for implementation of the above. >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> > > > > -- > > - > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- - |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by Tracey P. Lauriault
I think the confusion is that the concept defined as “public domain” using
those specific words are not stated directly in the Copyright Act, but there is
plenty of legal precedent in the case law as such. Since the civil law in
Canada is a common law system, one would have to review these precedent-setting
cases to actually find the legal basis for it under that specific
terminology. I forget which specific landmark case it was that set this
precedent. Any copyright lawyers around?
In any case, the concept of “public domain” is well defined, both in law
and in common sense and frequently used in industry. It may be defined in
a technical legal sense as copyright assignment to her majesty the queen or some
such.
Regards,
Drew
From: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:45 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for
Montreal CIPPIC
is currently reviewing the Public Domain license as an option for the City of
Ottawa and the G4. That report should be available next week. CIPPIC
also did the work on Creative Commons Canada http://www.cippic.ca/open-licensing/.
Glen;
Legal is not my strength, but I do believe that cities are different than
the Feds.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain? -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by Drew Mcpherson
My understanding from people who know more than I do -- Kent Mewhort to thread? -- is that, while works whose copyright has expired are in the public domain, explicitly placing a new work in the public domain is problematic in Canada. Instead, the best practice is to retain copyright but attach a permissive, irrevocable license.
Suggestions for the Montreal motion: 1. For the (c) point, explicitly specify ODC-By or something functionally equivalent (I'm not sure a French translation of ODC-By exists yet) as the license. Licensing is something many cities have gotten wrong; city lawyers will be risk-averse and restriction-friendly; it's far better for us to specify a precise set of terms than offer loose guidelines, which almost inevitably end up producing license terms which are egregious (the common Canadian "we can make you stop using data you've already downloaded, at any time, for any reason") or bizarre (Ottawa's insistence that, if you use their data, you comply with all industry standards).
2. For the (a) point, I'd argue that "open standards", to the degree that it means anything, isn't a battle we want to be fighting. Far more important is machine-processable, which you cover in the principles earlier. PDF is an open standard, but of course not the kind of data we want. Meanwhile, ESRI shapefiles are proprietary, and I'd be thrilled if Montreal released any of its geospatial data in that format.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain? |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
Just to echo on Michael's comment, I don't know if you can make
something public domain however, this is the wrong discussion. What
we do know is that data (and facts) cannot be copyrighted so to
apply copyright to data is itself a problem (and cannot be legally
upheld). What can be copyrighted is the data structure, and here
waiving all rights is the right way forward. However, it some ways
it doesn't matter since it is the data we are after. The bigger
challenge isn't the copyright issues, it's the license (should the
city choose to exercise one.
In relation to putting things in the public domain I am not 100% but it may be true that, as Michael has suggested, that placing new works in the public domain is problematic. Drew - this is why CC created the public domain registry, so that people could add items to which copyright had definitely expired. MAybe you can add new works to it, but that isn't clear to me. cheers, dave On 11-01-12 9:12 AM, Michael Mulley wrote: My understanding from people who know more than I do -- Kent Mewhort to thread? -- is that, while works whose copyright has expired are in the public domain, explicitly placing a new work in the public domain is problematic in Canada. Instead, the best practice is to retain copyright but attach a permissive, irrevocable license. |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by Jonathan Brun-2
Le 11 janv. 2011 à 19:04, Jonathan Brun a écrit : > Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data in the city of Montreal. excellent. > The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in Vancouver and Ottawa. I would encourage you to read what is done in France too given that Quebec and France share the same code origin. # Ville de Rennes http://www.data.rennes-metropole.fr/fr/faq.html http://www.data.rennes-metropole.fr/fr/faq/faq-technique.html http://www.data.rennes-metropole.fr/fr/faq/faq-juridique.html # Ville de Bordeaux http://www.aecom.org/Vous-informer/Evenements/Vers-des-donnees-publiques-ouvertes-en-Aquitaine http://www.aecom.org/Vous-informer/Juridique-TIC/Guides-juridiques/Les-donnees-publiques-decembre-2010 # Further references of things happening in France http://www.reseaufing.org/pg/groups/1854/rutilisation-des-donnes-publiques/ http://libertic.wordpress.com/ My comments about the motion. Note that You might need examples. These below are suggestions of rewriting. I put some of my comments in […comment…] The document for now shows more fears than recommendation and practical direction. Any vague terms should be removed. You know what you want, just say it. ====================================================================== > Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal > > Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, Z,...", but we are really looking for comments on the following: > > AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; > > To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are recommended by Montréal Ouvert. These guidelines will assist the city administration and its employees, as well its affiliate associations to create a sustainable Open Data environment in Montreal. > Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is not subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege limitations. * Public data are information contained or received by a public service in its mission of public service and that is not subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege limitations. > Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. * Raw data are data collected at the source without any modifications and/or analytical aggregation. > Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the value of the data. * In order to be effective, when it is possible, data have to be released in public at the same time they have been transmitted and/or produced. > Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest range of purposes. [Useless. Data are public or not. You might want to say something else ] Data have to be uniquely identified and accessible at any time. > Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated processing. Documented and open format (non proprietary) and structured data allow for machine processable data manipulation. > Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of registration. Data have to be accessible to anyone without constraints (except those covered by legal exceptions) > Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has exclusive control. [suppress, redundancy] > License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be allowed.” Data are available under a appropriate license such as http://Opendatacommons.org/ licenses. > La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": > > a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is declared "open" [Without defining open, you can't declare it.] a. The data produced and collected by the city of Montréal respect the elements defined in the previous guidelines. > Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; ["greatest amount of data possible" is not testable. At the end of one year you can't attest that it has been achieved. just scrape s/the greatest amount of// and s/possible// ] > Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible to adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other formats of media; [scrape /move as quickly as possible to//] > b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine readable formats. [What is an index? a Web page, a paper catalog?] b. The city of Montreal puts on a stable URI on the web, the links to all open datasets in machine readable formats. > c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. c. That the data are available on under an open data license. ====================================================================== -- Karl Dubost Montréal, QC, Canada http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
I am not sure if this is the right level of granularity for your
document, but most of the Canadian cities' efforts do not include versioning of either data or licenses. This is needed, so an end user knows that license (& version) goes with what data (& its version). Moving targets of either is problematic. In the Sunlight Foundation's "Ten Principles for Opening Up Government Information" (http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/documents/ten-open-data-principles/), principle 9 deals with this: "9. Permanence The capability of finding information over time is referred to as permanence. Information released by the government online should be sticky: It should be available online in archives in perpetuity. Often times, information is updated, changed or removed without any indication that an alteration has been made. Or, it is made available as a stream of data, but not archived anywhere. For best use by the public, information made available online should remain online, with appropriate version-tracking and archiving over time." -Glen On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Karl Dubost <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Le 11 janv. 2011 à 19:04, Jonathan Brun a écrit : >> Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data in the city of Montreal. > > excellent. > > >> The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in Vancouver and Ottawa. > > I would encourage you to read what is done in France too given that Quebec and France share the same code origin. > > # Ville de Rennes > http://www.data.rennes-metropole.fr/fr/faq.html > http://www.data.rennes-metropole.fr/fr/faq/faq-technique.html > http://www.data.rennes-metropole.fr/fr/faq/faq-juridique.html > > # Ville de Bordeaux > http://www.aecom.org/Vous-informer/Evenements/Vers-des-donnees-publiques-ouvertes-en-Aquitaine > http://www.aecom.org/Vous-informer/Juridique-TIC/Guides-juridiques/Les-donnees-publiques-decembre-2010 > > > > # Further references of things happening in France > http://www.reseaufing.org/pg/groups/1854/rutilisation-des-donnes-publiques/ > http://libertic.wordpress.com/ > > My comments about the motion. Note that You might need examples. > These below are suggestions of rewriting. I put some of my comments in […comment…] The document for now shows more fears than recommendation and practical direction. Any vague terms should be removed. You know what you want, just say it. > > ====================================================================== > >> Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal >> >> Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, Z,...", but we are really looking for comments on the following: >> >> AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; >> >> To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are recommended by Montréal Ouvert. > > > These guidelines will assist the city administration and its employees, as well its affiliate associations to create a sustainable Open Data environment in Montreal. > > >> Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is not subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege limitations. > > > * Public data are information contained or received by a public service in its mission of public service and that is not subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege limitations. > > >> Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. > > * Raw data are data collected at the source without any modifications and/or analytical aggregation. > > >> Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the value of the data. > > > * In order to be effective, when it is possible, data have to be released in public at the same time they have been transmitted and/or produced. > > >> Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest range of purposes. > > [Useless. Data are public or not. You might want to say something else ] > > Data have to be uniquely identified and accessible at any time. > > >> Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated processing. > > > Documented and open format (non proprietary) and structured data allow for machine processable data manipulation. > > >> Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of registration. > > > Data have to be accessible to anyone without constraints (except those covered by legal exceptions) > > >> Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has exclusive control. > > > [suppress, redundancy] > > >> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be allowed.” > > > Data are available under a appropriate license such as http://Opendatacommons.org/ licenses. > > >> La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": >> >> a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is declared "open" > > [Without defining open, you can't declare it.] > > a. The data produced and collected by the city of Montréal respect the elements defined in the previous guidelines. > > >> Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; > > > ["greatest amount of data possible" is not testable. At the end of one year you can't attest that it has been achieved. just scrape > s/the greatest amount of// > and s/possible// > ] > > >> Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible to adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other formats of media; > > [scrape /move as quickly as possible to//] > > >> b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine readable formats. > > [What is an index? a Web page, a paper catalog?] > > b. The city of Montreal puts on a stable URI on the web, the links to all open datasets in machine readable formats. > >> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. > > c. That the data are available on under an open data license. > > ====================================================================== > > > -- > Karl Dubost > Montréal, QC, Canada > http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > -- - |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
Here are some things to consider:
http://traceyplauriault.ca/2010/07/21/changecamp-ottawa-2010-open-data-terms-of-use-session/ These comments came from consultation. Also, you may want to consider the current report prepared by CIPPIC: http://www.cippic.ca/uploads/open-licensing/CIPPIC-Ottawa_License_Report-2010-11-15.pdf An update to that report is forthcoming. I will look more carefully over the weekend. Cheers t On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Glen Newton <[hidden email]> wrote: > I am not sure if this is the right level of granularity for your > document, but most of the Canadian cities' efforts do not include > versioning of either data or licenses. This is needed, so an end user > knows that license (& version) goes with what data (& its version). > Moving targets of either is problematic. > > In the Sunlight Foundation's "Ten Principles for Opening Up Government > Information" (http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/documents/ten-open-data-principles/), > principle 9 deals with this: > "9. Permanence > The capability of finding information over time is referred to as > permanence. Information released by the government online should be > sticky: It should be available online in archives in perpetuity. Often > times, information is updated, changed or removed without any > indication that an alteration has been made. Or, it is made available > as a stream of data, but not archived anywhere. For best use by the > public, information made available online should remain online, with > appropriate version-tracking and archiving over time." > > -Glen > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Karl Dubost <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Le 11 janv. 2011 à 19:04, Jonathan Brun a écrit : >>> Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data in the city of Montreal. >> >> excellent. >> >> >>> The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in Vancouver and Ottawa. >> >> I would encourage you to read what is done in France too given that Quebec and France share the same code origin. >> >> # Ville de Rennes >> http://www.data.rennes-metropole.fr/fr/faq.html >> http://www.data.rennes-metropole.fr/fr/faq/faq-technique.html >> http://www.data.rennes-metropole.fr/fr/faq/faq-juridique.html >> >> # Ville de Bordeaux >> http://www.aecom.org/Vous-informer/Evenements/Vers-des-donnees-publiques-ouvertes-en-Aquitaine >> http://www.aecom.org/Vous-informer/Juridique-TIC/Guides-juridiques/Les-donnees-publiques-decembre-2010 >> >> >> >> # Further references of things happening in France >> http://www.reseaufing.org/pg/groups/1854/rutilisation-des-donnes-publiques/ >> http://libertic.wordpress.com/ >> >> My comments about the motion. Note that You might need examples. >> These below are suggestions of rewriting. I put some of my comments in […comment…] The document for now shows more fears than recommendation and practical direction. Any vague terms should be removed. You know what you want, just say it. >> >> ====================================================================== >> >>> Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal >>> >>> Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, Z,...", but we are really looking for comments on the following: >>> >>> AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; >>> >>> To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are recommended by Montréal Ouvert. >> >> >> These guidelines will assist the city administration and its employees, as well its affiliate associations to create a sustainable Open Data environment in Montreal. >> >> >>> Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is not subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege limitations. >> >> >> * Public data are information contained or received by a public service in its mission of public service and that is not subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege limitations. >> >> >>> Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible level of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. >> >> * Raw data are data collected at the source without any modifications and/or analytical aggregation. >> >> >>> Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the value of the data. >> >> >> * In order to be effective, when it is possible, data have to be released in public at the same time they have been transmitted and/or produced. >> >> >>> Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest range of purposes. >> >> [Useless. Data are public or not. You might want to say something else ] >> >> Data have to be uniquely identified and accessible at any time. >> >> >>> Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated processing. >> >> >> Documented and open format (non proprietary) and structured data allow for machine processable data manipulation. >> >> >>> Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of registration. >> >> >> Data have to be accessible to anyone without constraints (except those covered by legal exceptions) >> >> >>> Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has exclusive control. >> >> >> [suppress, redundancy] >> >> >>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may be allowed.” >> >> >> Data are available under a appropriate license such as http://Opendatacommons.org/ licenses. >> >> >>> La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": >>> >>> a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is declared "open" >> >> [Without defining open, you can't declare it.] >> >> a. The data produced and collected by the city of Montréal respect the elements defined in the previous guidelines. >> >> >>> Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; >> >> >> ["greatest amount of data possible" is not testable. At the end of one year you can't attest that it has been achieved. just scrape >> s/the greatest amount of// >> and s/possible// >> ] >> >> >>> Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible to adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other formats of media; >> >> [scrape /move as quickly as possible to//] >> >> >>> b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine readable formats. >> >> [What is an index? a Web page, a paper catalog?] >> >> b. The city of Montreal puts on a stable URI on the web, the links to all open datasets in machine readable formats. >> >>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >> >> c. That the data are available on under an open data license. >> >> ====================================================================== >> >> >> -- >> Karl Dubost >> Montréal, QC, Canada >> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> > > > > -- > > - > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- Tracey P. Lauriault 613-234-2805 |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by David Eaves
I’m surprised you guys are actually debating the suggestion that it would
be difficult to put something into the public domain and allow it to be copied
in the age of rampant copyright violation where people freely and blatantly
trade obviously copyrighted works. If someone actually wanted to release a
work to be copied freely that was of value, I’m quite certain there would be NO
problems whatsoever with this. Seriously, what’s the issue?
There are no possible legal issues since the only person with a possible
cause of action would be the one who was releasing the works. The only
possible catch I could foresee in any way shape or form would be someone who
pretends to release something into the public domain and tricks people into
copying it so that they can file a lawsuit against them, but I’m pretty sure
that would be abuse of process and VERY severely frowned upon to the point that
the person doing so would likely have a backlash of punitive damages from the
courts.
So why even worry about it?
cheers,
drew
From: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:58 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for
Montreal Just
to echo on Michael's comment, I don't know if you can make something public
domain however, this is the wrong discussion. What we do know is that data (and
facts) cannot be copyrighted so to apply copyright to data is itself a problem
(and cannot be legally upheld). What can be copyrighted is the data structure,
and here waiving all rights is the right way forward. However, it some ways it
doesn't matter since it is the data we are after. The bigger challenge isn't the
copyright issues, it's the license (should the city choose to exercise
one. In relation to putting things in the public domain I am not 100% but it may be true that, as Michael has suggested, that placing new works in the public domain is problematic. Drew - this is why CC created the public domain registry, so that people could add items to which copyright had definitely expired. MAybe you can add new works to it, but that isn't clear to me. cheers, dave On 11-01-12 9:12 AM, Michael Mulley wrote: My understanding from people who know more than I do -- Kent Mewhort to thread? -- is that, while works whose copyright has expired are in the public domain, explicitly placing a new work in the public domain is problematic in Canada. Instead, the best practice is to retain copyright but attach a permissive, irrevocable license.
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
Drew,
I do not know how the present environment of 'rampant copyright violation' would change how easy it would be to put something in the public domain. As I indicated earlier, you cannot put a newly created work into the public domain in Canada. You can, however, license it to that it is, for _almost_ all intents and purposes, in the public domain. But the copyright holder still holds the copyright. You are conflating these two things. As opposed to 1) a work whose copyright has expired; or 2) A work in the U.S. whose rights holder has explicitly placed the work in the Public Domain. Both of these do not have any copyright associated with them. We're not worrying about it. We're just making it clear that if you want to offer public domain-like rights to a work in Canada, then you have to do it through a license. -Glen On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: > I’m surprised you guys are actually debating the suggestion that it would be > difficult to put something into the public domain and allow it to be copied > in the age of rampant copyright violation where people freely and blatantly > trade obviously copyrighted works. If someone actually wanted to release a > work to be copied freely that was of value, I’m quite certain there would be > NO problems whatsoever with this. Seriously, what’s the issue? > > There are no possible legal issues since the only person with a possible > cause of action would be the one who was releasing the works. The only > possible catch I could foresee in any way shape or form would be someone who > pretends to release something into the public domain and tricks people into > copying it so that they can file a lawsuit against them, but I’m pretty sure > that would be abuse of process and VERY severely frowned upon to the point > that the person doing so would likely have a backlash of punitive damages > from the courts. > > So why even worry about it? > > cheers, > drew > > > From: David Eaves > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:58 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > > Just to echo on Michael's comment, I don't know if you can make something > public domain however, this is the wrong discussion. What we do know is that > data (and facts) cannot be copyrighted so to apply copyright to data is > itself a problem (and cannot be legally upheld). What can be copyrighted is > the data structure, and here waiving all rights is the right way forward. > However, it some ways it doesn't matter since it is the data we are after. > The bigger challenge isn't the copyright issues, it's the license (should > the city choose to exercise one. > > In relation to putting things in the public domain I am not 100% but it may > be true that, as Michael has suggested, that placing new works in the public > domain is problematic. Drew - this is why CC created the public domain > registry, so that people could add items to which copyright had definitely > expired. MAybe you can add new works to it, but that isn't clear to me. > > cheers, > dave > > On 11-01-12 9:12 AM, Michael Mulley wrote: > > My understanding from people who know more than I do -- Kent Mewhort to > thread? -- is that, while works whose copyright has expired are in the > public domain, explicitly placing a new work in the public domain is > problematic in Canada. Instead, the best practice is to retain copyright but > attach a permissive, irrevocable license. > > Suggestions for the Montreal motion: > > 1. For the (c) point, explicitly specify ODC-By or something functionally > equivalent (I'm not sure a French translation of ODC-By exists yet) as the > license. Licensing is something many cities have gotten wrong; city lawyers > will be risk-averse and restriction-friendly; it's far better for us to > specify a precise set of terms than offer loose guidelines, which almost > inevitably end up producing license terms which are egregious (the common > Canadian "we can make you stop using data you've already downloaded, at any > time, for any reason") or bizarre (Ottawa's insistence that, if you use > their data, you comply with all industry standards). > > 2. For the (a) point, I'd argue that "open standards", to the degree that it > means anything, isn't a battle we want to be fighting. Far more important is > machine-processable, which you cover in the principles earlier. PDF is an > open standard, but of course not the kind of data we want. Meanwhile, ESRI > shapefiles are proprietary, and I'd be thrilled if Montreal released any of > its geospatial data in that format. > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain? >> >> That kind of goes against everything I've learned in school and industry >> and what about this: >> >> For Immediate Release >> March 3, 2006 >> Toronto, ON – Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency >> and Creative Commons >> Canada, in partnership with Creative Commons Corporation in the US, today >> announced the >> development of a Canadian public domain registry. The ground- breaking >> project – the most >> comprehensive of its kind in Canada – will create an online, globally >> searchable catalogue of published >> works that are in the Canadian public domain. >> >> >> Respectfully submitted, >> Drew Mcpherson >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton >> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:29 AM >> To: civicaccess discuss >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal >> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>> >>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >>> trade secret >>> regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may >>> be allowed >> >>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >>> re-use by >>> third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted >>> except >>> if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >> >> Jonathan, >> >> In Canada, there is no legal concept 'Public Domain'. >> And I believe that you cannot remove the copyright from something, >> even if you own it (but you can transfer it). >> You can state (i.e. license) that you allow all and any uses by all >> and any persons, for _most_ intents and purposes making it very Public >> Domain-like. >> But I believe the copyright remains. >> >> For example, there has been some mention in this group of how Surrey, >> BC is taking the lead with how open its data release is (I agree that >> Surrey is in the lead and is where all Canadian cities should be). >> However, in this forum Sam Vekemans 2010.11.16 said: "...to "Open >> Data" meaning truly useful content, where no restrictions are in >> place. (ie. Surrey, BC making their data Public Domain)". While I >> completely agree with his sentiment, technically (amd legally) Surrey >> did not put its data into the 'Public Domain', nor did they relinquish >> copyright. Instead, they adopted a license (Public Domain Dedication >> and License v1.0 http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ ) >> that allows almost unlimited use, by anyone, of the data Surrey is >> releasing under this license. >> >> From the license: "...this waiver and licence tries to the fullest >> extent possible to eliminate or fully license any rights that cover >> this database and data." >> >> So there is a license, and copyright is retained. >> >> This license recognizes that some jurisdictions do not have 'Public >> Domain' and has a clause to take this into account: >> >> "3.2 Waiver of rights and claims in Copyright and Database Rights when >> Section 3.1 dedication inapplicable. If the dedication in Section 3.1 >> does not apply in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 6.4, the >> Rightsholder waives any rights and claims that the Rightsholder may >> have or acquire in the future over the Work in: >> a. Copyright; and >> b. Database Rights. >> To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, the above waiver >> of rights and claims applies worldwide and includes media and formats >> now known or created in the future. The Rightsholder agrees not to >> assert the above rights and waives the right to enforce them over the >> Work." >> >> So the Rightsholder still has these rights, but promises not to assert >> or enforce them. Again, still a license, and no 'removal' of copyright >> takes place. >> >> My suggestion to replace the clauses in Jonathan's text either by >> adopting some broad language talking about using a liberal, >> non-exclusive, non-restrictive license (possibly with examples) or go >> straight to suggesting the PDDL. >> >> I am sure the city of Montreal lawyers will not like to have a clause >> that asks the city to do something that is not legally possible in >> Canada. :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Glen :-) >> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Bonjour à tous, >>> Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data in >>> the >>> city of Montreal. The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in >>> Vancouver and Ottawa. We would very much appreciate your comments, >>> alternative wording and other advice, especially around your respective >>> areas of expertise. >>> This version remains a rough copy. >>> The document is presently in English to facilitate commenting by various >>> parties across Canada, it will be circulated on Civic Access for a second >>> round of comments and then translated in French. >>> Deadline for 1st round of comments: Sunday, January 16th, 2010 at 11PM >>> EST >>> Please be sure to sign with your name. >>> Warm regards, >>> Jean-Noé, Jonathan, Michael, & Sebastien >>> MontrealOuvert.net >>> Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal >>> Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, Z,...", >>> but >>> we are really looking for comments on the following: >>> AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; >>> To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the >>> following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are >>> recommended by Montréal Ouvert. Originally created in 2007 through a >>> workshop of concerned organizations, many jurisdictions have used them to >>> guide their Open Data initiatives: >>> Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is >>> not >>> subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege >>> limitations. >>> Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible >>> level >>> of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. >>> Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the >>> value >>> of the data. >>> Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest >>> range of purposes. >>> Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated >>> processing. >>> Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of >>> registration. >>> Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has >>> exclusive control. >>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >>> trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege >>> restrictions may be allowed.” >>> (Source: http://resource.org/8_principles.html) >>> >>> La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": >>> a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is >>> declared >>> "open" >>> Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with >>> citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data >>> possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; >>> Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible to >>> adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other >>> formats >>> of media; >>> b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine >>> readable formats. >>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >>> re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not >>> copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >>> >>> BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the XXX be tasked with developing an action >>> plan >>> for implementation of the above. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> - >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > ________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > -- - |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
I just don't see the functional difference here. The fact that many more
people will understand "public domain" works rather than some convoluted licence I think makes it useful to describe the concept at least. As for "you have to do it through a licence", that's certainly not the case. I have released many things into the "public domain" and there haven't been any lawyer police descend on me to condemn me for doing so, nor did it inhibit the usability or functionality of the process. Personally my approach to law is that it shouldn't interfere with common sense things, and I'm pretty sure that's the point (except maybe from a lawyer's perspective who makes money off it). If it's getting to the point that obsessing over whether you can release your own work to the public without a complicated licence agreement, then I'd personally say it's gone too far and not even bother with it. In actuality, the person who created a work is not obligated to do anything, not required to provide a licence agreement and can just distribute their own stuff freely and say anything they want about it, including but not limited to describing it as being in the "public domain". If it were ever to escalate into a complicated legal battle, then that's the point any of this might matter, but if that did happen and someone had been saying their work was in the "public domain", I think that would be a pretty clear common sense thing from the perspective of a judge, no? Anyway, my point is, why complicate such a simple thing when it actually doesn't "have" to be? Is there any advantage to complicating it? cheers, drew -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:08 AM To: civicaccess discuss Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal Drew, I do not know how the present environment of 'rampant copyright violation' would change how easy it would be to put something in the public domain. As I indicated earlier, you cannot put a newly created work into the public domain in Canada. You can, however, license it to that it is, for _almost_ all intents and purposes, in the public domain. But the copyright holder still holds the copyright. You are conflating these two things. As opposed to 1) a work whose copyright has expired; or 2) A work in the U.S. whose rights holder has explicitly placed the work in the Public Domain. Both of these do not have any copyright associated with them. We're not worrying about it. We're just making it clear that if you want to offer public domain-like rights to a work in Canada, then you have to do it through a license. -Glen On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: > I’m surprised you guys are actually debating the suggestion that it would > be > difficult to put something into the public domain and allow it to be > copied > in the age of rampant copyright violation where people freely and > blatantly > trade obviously copyrighted works. If someone actually wanted to release > a > work to be copied freely that was of value, I’m quite certain there would > be > NO problems whatsoever with this. Seriously, what’s the issue? > > There are no possible legal issues since the only person with a possible > cause of action would be the one who was releasing the works. The only > possible catch I could foresee in any way shape or form would be someone > who > pretends to release something into the public domain and tricks people > into > copying it so that they can file a lawsuit against them, but I’m pretty > sure > that would be abuse of process and VERY severely frowned upon to the point > that the person doing so would likely have a backlash of punitive damages > from the courts. > > So why even worry about it? > > cheers, > drew > > > From: David Eaves > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:58 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > > Just to echo on Michael's comment, I don't know if you can make something > public domain however, this is the wrong discussion. What we do know is > that > data (and facts) cannot be copyrighted so to apply copyright to data is > itself a problem (and cannot be legally upheld). What can be copyrighted > is > the data structure, and here waiving all rights is the right way forward. > However, it some ways it doesn't matter since it is the data we are after. > The bigger challenge isn't the copyright issues, it's the license (should > the city choose to exercise one. > > In relation to putting things in the public domain I am not 100% but it > may > be true that, as Michael has suggested, that placing new works in the > public > domain is problematic. Drew - this is why CC created the public domain > registry, so that people could add items to which copyright had definitely > expired. MAybe you can add new works to it, but that isn't clear to me. > > cheers, > dave > > On 11-01-12 9:12 AM, Michael Mulley wrote: > > My understanding from people who know more than I do -- Kent Mewhort to > thread? -- is that, while works whose copyright has expired are in the > public domain, explicitly placing a new work in the public domain is > problematic in Canada. Instead, the best practice is to retain copyright > but > attach a permissive, irrevocable license. > > Suggestions for the Montreal motion: > > 1. For the (c) point, explicitly specify ODC-By or something functionally > equivalent (I'm not sure a French translation of ODC-By exists yet) as the > license. Licensing is something many cities have gotten wrong; city > lawyers > will be risk-averse and restriction-friendly; it's far better for us to > specify a precise set of terms than offer loose guidelines, which almost > inevitably end up producing license terms which are egregious (the common > Canadian "we can make you stop using data you've already downloaded, at > any > time, for any reason") or bizarre (Ottawa's insistence that, if you use > their data, you comply with all industry standards). > > 2. For the (a) point, I'd argue that "open standards", to the degree that > it > means anything, isn't a battle we want to be fighting. Far more important > is > machine-processable, which you cover in the principles earlier. PDF is an > open standard, but of course not the kind of data we want. Meanwhile, ESRI > shapefiles are proprietary, and I'd be thrilled if Montreal released any > of > its geospatial data in that format. > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain? >> >> That kind of goes against everything I've learned in school and industry >> and what about this: >> >> For Immediate Release >> March 3, 2006 >> Toronto, ON – Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency >> and Creative Commons >> Canada, in partnership with Creative Commons Corporation in the US, today >> announced the >> development of a Canadian public domain registry. The ground- breaking >> project – the most >> comprehensive of its kind in Canada – will create an online, globally >> searchable catalogue of published >> works that are in the Canadian public domain. >> >> >> Respectfully submitted, >> Drew Mcpherson >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton >> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:29 AM >> To: civicaccess discuss >> Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal >> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>> >>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >>> trade secret >>> regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions may >>> be allowed >> >>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >>> re-use by >>> third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not copyrighted >>> except >>> if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >> >> Jonathan, >> >> In Canada, there is no legal concept 'Public Domain'. >> And I believe that you cannot remove the copyright from something, >> even if you own it (but you can transfer it). >> You can state (i.e. license) that you allow all and any uses by all >> and any persons, for _most_ intents and purposes making it very Public >> Domain-like. >> But I believe the copyright remains. >> >> For example, there has been some mention in this group of how Surrey, >> BC is taking the lead with how open its data release is (I agree that >> Surrey is in the lead and is where all Canadian cities should be). >> However, in this forum Sam Vekemans 2010.11.16 said: "...to "Open >> Data" meaning truly useful content, where no restrictions are in >> place. (ie. Surrey, BC making their data Public Domain)". While I >> completely agree with his sentiment, technically (amd legally) Surrey >> did not put its data into the 'Public Domain', nor did they relinquish >> copyright. Instead, they adopted a license (Public Domain Dedication >> and License v1.0 http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ ) >> that allows almost unlimited use, by anyone, of the data Surrey is >> releasing under this license. >> >> From the license: "...this waiver and licence tries to the fullest >> extent possible to eliminate or fully license any rights that cover >> this database and data." >> >> So there is a license, and copyright is retained. >> >> This license recognizes that some jurisdictions do not have 'Public >> Domain' and has a clause to take this into account: >> >> "3.2 Waiver of rights and claims in Copyright and Database Rights when >> Section 3.1 dedication inapplicable. If the dedication in Section 3.1 >> does not apply in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 6.4, the >> Rightsholder waives any rights and claims that the Rightsholder may >> have or acquire in the future over the Work in: >> a. Copyright; and >> b. Database Rights. >> To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, the above waiver >> of rights and claims applies worldwide and includes media and formats >> now known or created in the future. The Rightsholder agrees not to >> assert the above rights and waives the right to enforce them over the >> Work." >> >> So the Rightsholder still has these rights, but promises not to assert >> or enforce them. Again, still a license, and no 'removal' of copyright >> takes place. >> >> My suggestion to replace the clauses in Jonathan's text either by >> adopting some broad language talking about using a liberal, >> non-exclusive, non-restrictive license (possibly with examples) or go >> straight to suggesting the PDDL. >> >> I am sure the city of Montreal lawyers will not like to have a clause >> that asks the city to do something that is not legally possible in >> Canada. :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Glen :-) >> >> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Bonjour à tous, >>> Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for open-data in >>> the >>> city of Montreal. The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in >>> Vancouver and Ottawa. We would very much appreciate your comments, >>> alternative wording and other advice, especially around your respective >>> areas of expertise. >>> This version remains a rough copy. >>> The document is presently in English to facilitate commenting by various >>> parties across Canada, it will be circulated on Civic Access for a >>> second >>> round of comments and then translated in French. >>> Deadline for 1st round of comments: Sunday, January 16th, 2010 at 11PM >>> EST >>> Please be sure to sign with your name. >>> Warm regards, >>> Jean-Noé, Jonathan, Michael, & Sebastien >>> MontrealOuvert.net >>> Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal >>> Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, Z,...", >>> but >>> we are really looking for comments on the following: >>> AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; >>> To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, the >>> following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are >>> recommended by Montréal Ouvert. Originally created in 2007 through a >>> workshop of concerned organizations, many jurisdictions have used them >>> to >>> guide their Open Data initiatives: >>> Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that is >>> not >>> subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege >>> limitations. >>> Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest possible >>> level >>> of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. >>> Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve the >>> value >>> of the data. >>> Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the widest >>> range of purposes. >>> Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated >>> processing. >>> Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement of >>> registration. >>> Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity has >>> exclusive control. >>> License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark or >>> trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege >>> restrictions may be allowed.” >>> (Source: http://resource.org/8_principles.html) >>> >>> La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": >>> a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is >>> declared >>> "open" >>> Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share with >>> citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of data >>> possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; >>> Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as possible >>> to >>> adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other >>> formats >>> of media; >>> b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in machine >>> readable formats. >>> c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for free >>> re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not >>> copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. >>> >>> BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the XXX be tasked with developing an action >>> plan >>> for implementation of the above. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> - >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > ________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > -- - _______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
Hi Drew,
The motion has to be rock-solid regarding legal aspects, mainly because the law defines what's acceptable/right or not. Copyright aspects are an important part of open-data. I agree with your point from a personal perspective, but organizations don't deal with common sense, they deal with the law, which is why we have to be very solid in this regard (if we want the city to adopt the motion).
The main issue is to determine whether there is a notion of "public domain" in Québec's "code civil" (or whatever code is relevant). I know that in France's copyright law is very peculiar and favors a lot the creator of the "artwork" (whether it's a painting or sampled data), hence the need for the creator to use a license to be very explicit about what can be done with the "artwork" -- we have to look and see what it's like in Québec.
So basically, everyone would gladly just go with the common sense, but because the motion targets organizations (because of its political nature), we need to do our homework and get these legal aspects right.
-- Sébastien 2011/1/13 Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> I just don't see the functional difference here. The fact that many more people will understand "public domain" works rather than some convoluted licence I think makes it useful to describe the concept at least. As for "you have to do it through a licence", that's certainly not the case. I have released many things into the "public domain" and there haven't been any lawyer police descend on me to condemn me for doing so, nor did it inhibit the usability or functionality of the process. |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
Well shouldn’t you hire a lawyer then?
drew
From: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:16 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for
Montreal Hi
Drew,
The motion has to be rock-solid regarding legal aspects, mainly because the
law defines what's acceptable/right or not. Copyright aspects are an important
part of open-data. I agree with your point from a personal perspective, but
organizations don't deal with common sense, they deal with the law, which is why
we have to be very solid in this regard (if we want the city to adopt the
motion).
The main issue is to determine whether there is a notion of "public domain"
in Québec's "code civil" (or whatever code is relevant). I know that in France's
copyright law is very peculiar and favors a lot the creator of the "artwork"
(whether it's a painting or sampled data), hence the need for the creator to use
a license to be very explicit about what can be done with the "artwork" -- we
have to look and see what it's like in Québec.
So basically, everyone would gladly just go with the common sense, but
because the motion targets organizations (because of its political nature), we
need to do our homework and get these legal aspects right.
-- Sébastien
2011/1/13 Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]>
I just don't see the functional difference here. The fact that many more people will understand "public domain" works rather than some convoluted licence I think makes it useful to describe the concept at least. As for "you have to do it through a licence", that's certainly not the case. I have released many things into the "public domain" and there haven't been any lawyer police descend on me to condemn me for doing so, nor did it inhibit the usability or functionality of the process.
_______________________________________________ CivicAccess-discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by Drew Mcpherson
Drew,
Le 12 janv. 2011 à 23:42, Drew Mcpherson a écrit : > I’m surprised you guys are actually debating the suggestion that it would be difficult to put something into the public domain and allow it to be copied in the age of rampant copyright violation where people freely and blatantly trade obviously copyrighted works. You can indeed decide that the legal system of a country is not relevant, but you have also to understand the context of this release. An individual releasing a photograph under public domain even if not possible under the terms of law does not have the same consequences than a city releasing all its data. Montreal Ouvert is trying to push the city to move forward with Open Data. They have to find a way, a path in the *current* legal system. If you can read French, you can NOT in France release something in the public domain :) similar issue http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domaine_public_en_droit_de_la_propriété_intellectuelle_français#Quand_l.E2.80.99.C5.93uvre_entre-t-elle_dans_le_domaine_public_.3F btw to the lawyers in the room, there is no section for Québec and Canada about Domaine Public on Wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domaine_public_(propriété_intellectuelle) See also http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_au_Canada -- Karl Dubost Montréal, QC, Canada http://www.la-grange.net/karl/ |
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by Drew Mcpherson
We'll definitely reach out to lawyers for review and advice... if you know anyone, please share :)
-- Sébastien
2011/1/13 Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]>
|
Re: Open-Data Motion for Montreal
|
|
In reply to this post by Drew Mcpherson
The city's lawyers will look at this before the city will approve it.
But likely the city is not interested in incurring the cost of having lawyers actually _write_ it. Cheaper to have others build it and the lawyers can vet it. -glen On 1/13/11, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Well shouldn’t you hire a lawyer then? > > drew > > From: Sébastien Pierre > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:16 AM > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > > Hi Drew, > > The motion has to be rock-solid regarding legal aspects, mainly because the > law defines what's acceptable/right or not. Copyright aspects are an > important part of open-data. I agree with your point from a personal > perspective, but organizations don't deal with common sense, they deal with > the law, which is why we have to be very solid in this regard (if we want > the city to adopt the motion). > > The main issue is to determine whether there is a notion of "public domain" > in Québec's "code civil" (or whatever code is relevant). I know that in > France's copyright law is very peculiar and favors a lot the creator of the > "artwork" (whether it's a painting or sampled data), hence the need for the > creator to use a license to be very explicit about what can be done with the > "artwork" -- we have to look and see what it's like in Québec. > > So basically, everyone would gladly just go with the common sense, but > because the motion targets organizations (because of its political nature), > we need to do our homework and get these legal aspects right. > > -- Sébastien > > > 2011/1/13 Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> > > I just don't see the functional difference here. The fact that many more > people will understand "public domain" works rather than some convoluted > licence I think makes it useful to describe the concept at least. As for > "you have to do it through a licence", that's certainly not the case. I > have released many things into the "public domain" and there haven't been > any lawyer police descend on me to condemn me for doing so, nor did it > inhibit the usability or functionality of the process. > > Personally my approach to law is that it shouldn't interfere with common > sense things, and I'm pretty sure that's the point (except maybe from a > lawyer's perspective who makes money off it). If it's getting to the point > that obsessing over whether you can release your own work to the public > without a complicated licence agreement, then I'd personally say it's gone > too far and not even bother with it. In actuality, the person who created a > work is not obligated to do anything, not required to provide a licence > agreement and can just distribute their own stuff freely and say anything > they want about it, including but not limited to describing it as being in > the "public domain". > > If it were ever to escalate into a complicated legal battle, then that's > the point any of this might matter, but if that did happen and someone had > been saying their work was in the "public domain", I think that would be a > pretty clear common sense thing from the perspective of a judge, no? > > Anyway, my point is, why complicate such a simple thing when it actually > doesn't "have" to be? Is there any advantage to complicating it? > > cheers, > drew > > > -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton > > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:08 AM > > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > > Drew, > > I do not know how the present environment of 'rampant copyright > violation' would change how easy it would be to put something in the > public domain. > > As I indicated earlier, you cannot put a newly created work into the > public domain in Canada. > You can, however, license it to that it is, for _almost_ all intents > and purposes, in the public domain. But the copyright holder still > holds the copyright. You are conflating these two things. > > As opposed to 1) a work whose copyright has expired; or 2) A work in > the U.S. whose rights holder has explicitly placed the work in the > Public Domain. Both of these do not have any copyright associated with > them. > > We're not worrying about it. We're just making it clear that if you > want to offer public domain-like rights to a work in Canada, then you > have to do it through a license. > > -Glen > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: > > I’m surprised you guys are actually debating the suggestion that it > would be > difficult to put something into the public domain and allow it to be > copied > in the age of rampant copyright violation where people freely and > blatantly > trade obviously copyrighted works. If someone actually wanted to > release a > work to be copied freely that was of value, I’m quite certain there > would be > NO problems whatsoever with this. Seriously, what’s the issue? > > There are no possible legal issues since the only person with a possible > cause of action would be the one who was releasing the works. The only > possible catch I could foresee in any way shape or form would be someone > who > pretends to release something into the public domain and tricks people > into > copying it so that they can file a lawsuit against them, but I’m pretty > sure > that would be abuse of process and VERY severely frowned upon to the > point > that the person doing so would likely have a backlash of punitive > damages > from the courts. > > So why even worry about it? > > cheers, > drew > > > From: David Eaves > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:58 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > > Just to echo on Michael's comment, I don't know if you can make > something > public domain however, this is the wrong discussion. What we do know is > that > data (and facts) cannot be copyrighted so to apply copyright to data is > itself a problem (and cannot be legally upheld). What can be copyrighted > is > the data structure, and here waiving all rights is the right way > forward. > However, it some ways it doesn't matter since it is the data we are > after. > The bigger challenge isn't the copyright issues, it's the license > (should > the city choose to exercise one. > > In relation to putting things in the public domain I am not 100% but it > may > be true that, as Michael has suggested, that placing new works in the > public > domain is problematic. Drew - this is why CC created the public domain > registry, so that people could add items to which copyright had > definitely > expired. MAybe you can add new works to it, but that isn't clear to me. > > cheers, > dave > > On 11-01-12 9:12 AM, Michael Mulley wrote: > > My understanding from people who know more than I do -- Kent Mewhort to > thread? -- is that, while works whose copyright has expired are in the > public domain, explicitly placing a new work in the public domain is > problematic in Canada. Instead, the best practice is to retain copyright > but > attach a permissive, irrevocable license. > > Suggestions for the Montreal motion: > > 1. For the (c) point, explicitly specify ODC-By or something > functionally > equivalent (I'm not sure a French translation of ODC-By exists yet) as > the > license. Licensing is something many cities have gotten wrong; city > lawyers > will be risk-averse and restriction-friendly; it's far better for us to > specify a precise set of terms than offer loose guidelines, which almost > inevitably end up producing license terms which are egregious (the > common > Canadian "we can make you stop using data you've already downloaded, at > any > time, for any reason") or bizarre (Ottawa's insistence that, if you use > their data, you comply with all industry standards). > > 2. For the (a) point, I'd argue that "open standards", to the degree > that it > means anything, isn't a battle we want to be fighting. Far more > important is > machine-processable, which you cover in the principles earlier. PDF is > an > open standard, but of course not the kind of data we want. Meanwhile, > ESRI > shapefiles are proprietary, and I'd be thrilled if Montreal released any > of > its geospatial data in that format. > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Drew Mcpherson <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Did you just say there is no Canadian public domain? > > That kind of goes against everything I've learned in school and > industry > and what about this: > > For Immediate Release > March 3, 2006 > Toronto, ON – Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing > Agency > and Creative Commons > Canada, in partnership with Creative Commons Corporation in the US, > today > announced the > development of a Canadian public domain registry. The ground- breaking > project – the most > comprehensive of its kind in Canada – will create an online, globally > searchable catalogue of published > works that are in the Canadian public domain. > > > Respectfully submitted, > Drew Mcpherson > > -----Original Message----- From: Glen Newton > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 11:29 AM > To: civicaccess discuss > Subject: Re: [CivicAccess-discuss] Open-Data Motion for Montreal > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun > <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark > or > trade secret > regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege restrictions > may > be allowed > > > > c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for > free > re-use by > third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and not > copyrighted > except > if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. > > > Jonathan, > > In Canada, there is no legal concept 'Public Domain'. > And I believe that you cannot remove the copyright from something, > even if you own it (but you can transfer it). > You can state (i.e. license) that you allow all and any uses by all > and any persons, for _most_ intents and purposes making it very Public > Domain-like. > But I believe the copyright remains. > > For example, there has been some mention in this group of how Surrey, > BC is taking the lead with how open its data release is (I agree that > Surrey is in the lead and is where all Canadian cities should be). > However, in this forum Sam Vekemans 2010.11.16 said: "...to "Open > Data" meaning truly useful content, where no restrictions are in > place. (ie. Surrey, BC making their data Public Domain)". While I > completely agree with his sentiment, technically (amd legally) Surrey > did not put its data into the 'Public Domain', nor did they relinquish > copyright. Instead, they adopted a license (Public Domain Dedication > and License v1.0 http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/ ) > that allows almost unlimited use, by anyone, of the data Surrey is > releasing under this license. > > From the license: "...this waiver and licence tries to the fullest > extent possible to eliminate or fully license any rights that cover > this database and data." > > So there is a license, and copyright is retained. > > This license recognizes that some jurisdictions do not have 'Public > Domain' and has a clause to take this into account: > > "3.2 Waiver of rights and claims in Copyright and Database Rights when > Section 3.1 dedication inapplicable. If the dedication in Section 3.1 > does not apply in the relevant jurisdiction under Section 6.4, the > Rightsholder waives any rights and claims that the Rightsholder may > have or acquire in the future over the Work in: > a. Copyright; and > b. Database Rights. > To the extent possible in the relevant jurisdiction, the above waiver > of rights and claims applies worldwide and includes media and formats > now known or created in the future. The Rightsholder agrees not to > assert the above rights and waives the right to enforce them over the > Work." > > So the Rightsholder still has these rights, but promises not to assert > or enforce them. Again, still a license, and no 'removal' of copyright > takes place. > > My suggestion to replace the clauses in Jonathan's text either by > adopting some broad language talking about using a liberal, > non-exclusive, non-restrictive license (possibly with examples) or go > straight to suggesting the PDDL. > > I am sure the city of Montreal lawyers will not like to have a clause > that asks the city to do something that is not legally possible in > Canada. :-) > > Thanks, > Glen :-) > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Jonathan Brun > <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > Bonjour à tous, > Montreal Ouvert is working to produce an "ideal" motion for > open-data in > the > city of Montreal. The motion is inspired by the great initiatives in > Vancouver and Ottawa. We would very much appreciate your comments, > alternative wording and other advice, especially around your > respective > areas of expertise. > This version remains a rough copy. > The document is presently in English to facilitate commenting by > various > parties across Canada, it will be circulated on Civic Access for a > second > round of comments and then translated in French. > Deadline for 1st round of comments: Sunday, January 16th, 2010 at > 11PM > EST > Please be sure to sign with your name. > Warm regards, > Jean-Noé, Jonathan, Michael, & Sebastien > MontrealOuvert.net > Motion pour les données ouvertes à la Ville de Montréal > Here we have a medium-lenth "WHEREAS Montreal has mandated X, Y, > Z,...", > but > we are really looking for comments on the following: > AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF OPEN DATA BEING THE FOLLOWING; > To guide City staff in determining what and how data is released, > the > following principles of Open Data provide good guidelines and are > recommended by Montréal Ouvert. Originally created in 2007 through > a > workshop of concerned organizations, many jurisdictions have used > them to > guide their Open Data initiatives: > Complete All public data is made available. Public data is data that > is > not > subject to legal or otherwise valid privacy, security or privilege > limitations. > Primary Data is as collected at the source, with the highest > possible > level > of granularity, not in aggregate or modified forms. > Timely Data is made available as quickly as necessary to preserve > the > value > of the data. > Accessible Data is available to the widest range of users for the > widest > range of purposes. > Machine processable Data is reasonably structured to allow automated > processing. > Non-discriminatory Data is available to anyone, with no requirement > of > registration. > Non-proprietary Data is available in a format over which no entity > has > exclusive control. > License-free Data is not subject to any copyright, patent, trademark > or > trade secret regulation. Reasonable privacy, security and privilege > restrictions may be allowed.” > (Source: http://resource.org/8_principles.html) > > La ville de Montréal "endorses the following": > a. That city data produced and collected by the City of Montreal is > declared > "open" > Open and Accessible Data - the City of Montreal will freely share > with > citizens, businesses and other jurisdictions the greatest amount of > data > possible while respecting privacy and security concerns; > Open Standards - the City of Montreal will move as quickly as > possible to > adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other > formats > of media; > b. That the city puts in place an index of all open datasets in > machine > readable formats. > c. That the data offered on the index are unlicensed, allowing for > free > re-use by third parties, in a prevailing open standard format, and > not > copyrighted except if otherwise prevented by legal considerations. > > BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the XXX be tasked with developing an > action > plan > for implementation of the above. > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > > > -- > > - > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > ________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > > > -- > > - > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss -- - |
«
Return to CivicAccess
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |