Posted by
Russell McOrmond-2 on
Aug 12, 2008; 1:45pm
URL: http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/copyright-issues-with-extracting-data-from-city-report-tp1157p1161.html
Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
> Thanks Reggie!
>
> I'll ask around, and I have bcc someone who knows these things and hope
> they will respond. I feel the same way about the last two questions as
> well, and I am also not sure the official's response is correct either.
> She sent you the copyright act but did she send you anything about licenses?
I am assuming that I was one of those people, as this came into my
inbox as well as via the list.
Basic underlying question: Yes, maps can have copyright. We can have
an interesting policy debate about whether that makes sense, and whether
they should be considered artistic works, but they do have copyright.
From the Copyright act: ""artistic work" includes paintings, drawings,
maps, charts, plans, photographs, engravings, sculptures, works of
artistic craftsmanship, architectural works, and compilations of
artistic works;"
The only ways that maps, charts or plans are different comes to
public exhibitions, where permission is required for other artistic
works, but not maps, charts or plans. That doesn't affect this
situation, which involves digitizing maps in a report.
The human listed as the author of this report doesn't likely hold
copyright on the report. In most cases these days it is the employer
that hold copyright over anything done while someone is at work. You
will need to find out who that copyright holder is -- the author may or
may not be helpful, but you don't have to rely on only them to find out
who the copyright holder is and seek the required permission (license).
The other issue may be that the municipality doesn't own the source
data upon which their own report is built, so they may not have the
ability to grant you permission at all. They may themselves be relying
on a license to be able to publish the report at all. I didn't look
closely, but the page
http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/environment/city_hall/getgreen/greenspace/evaluation_study_en.html
says a study was commissioned -- which may mean the municipality doesn't
own anything. This is also a problem I often see with the feds that
have a policy that says the private sector company retains any PCT from
work done for the government, and the government only receives an open
license to use the works. Folks at TBS are trying to get that changed
so that the works would be under a public license, and not just a
license available to a specific subset of the public sector.
There is also a general problem I've seen within bureaucracies with
understanding copyright, what it is useful for, and when it is an
inappropriate tool. What they often want is waiver from liability for
any republication or derivative use, and clear attribution (IE: who the
author of the original is, and how any republications or derivatives
can't claim they are the official version). All these things could be
accomplished with a liberal copyright licenses, while using trademark to
deal with attribution/official-versions, but nobody ever bothers to get
a policy set on this.
Of course, pushing all levels of government to spend the time to
create good policies on this is part of what CivicAccess is all about.
Sorry I can't offer any specifics on this situation, and can only
come up with more questions...
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <
http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/ "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!"