Re: copyright issues with extracting data from city report

Posted by Regie Alam on Aug 13, 2008; 12:04pm
URL: http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/copyright-issues-with-extracting-data-from-city-report-tp1157p1165.html


Hello Tracey,

   Thanks for looking into this. Yes, I'll definitely
pursue this. I have a feeling that the city do not
have official policies with things like this. It might
be ripe for pushing for policies that promote open
access of city data to the public.

Regie


--- "Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I went and looked at the  *T*HE DISSEMINATION OF
> GOVERNMENT *GEOGRAPHIC DATA
> IN CANADA** GUIDE TO BEST PRACTICES -
>
http://www.geoconnections.org/publications/Best_practices_guide/html/summary_e.html
>
> *I perused the pdf document -
>
http://www.geoconnections.org/publications/Best_practices_guide/Guide_to_Best_Practices_v12_finale_e.pdf

> *
>
> Read Chapter 3 & 4, particularly sections -
> 4.1.2 (i) Contour of Copyright Protection (ii)
> Derived Works
> 4.1.3 Raw Data is not Protected under the Copyright
> Act
> 4.1.4 Data Sets as Protected Compilations under the
> Copyright Act
> Case Study Compilation
>
> *There is some ambiguity.  It is interesting to note
> that the government is
> producing data for the best interest of the
> government and for government
> use but not necessarily for the public it
> represents.  I believe we have a
> public access / use issue, when it comes to
> government and the copyright act
> i believe we need to push for more progressive
> licensing.  This document
> also contains references to the federal TBS
> policies, Communications
> Policies etc. in *section 3* that are worth reading.
>  You will note that I
> sent a question regarding provincial and territorial
> regulations etc.
> Finally, this is an interesting case and Regie, I
> hope you will continue to
> pursue it.  See if the City has that vector file and
> see if they will share
> it and if then lets see where to go next.
>
> Cheers
> Tracey
>
> *
>
>
> *On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Tracey P.
> Lauriault <[hidden email]>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?
> >
> > hmmm.
> >
> > Cheers
> > t
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Regie Alam
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hello Tracey,
> >>
> >> Please find my answers embedded below.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Regie
> >>
> >>
> >> --- "Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Regie;
> >> >
> >> > That is a really interesting question.  I am
> not an
> >> > expert in this area
> >> > however here are some of questions worth
> >> > answering/considering.  There are a
> >> > few experts who have some knowledge in this
> area on
> >> > the list:
> >> >
> >> > 1. What exactly was the report authors
> response?
> >>
> >> I haven't contacted the author yet. I did contact
> the
> >> city staff that was listed as the contact person
> for
> >> the project
> >> (
> >>
>

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/environment/city_hall/getgreen/greenspace/evaluation_study_en.html

> >> ).
> >>
> >> Her response was that the city won't be able to
> >> support the use of city information in another
> form on
> >> the internet.
> >>
> >> > 2. This is a value added exercise, it is for
> non
> >> > commercial
> >> > purposes,correct?
> >>
> >> Yes, it is for non-commercial use.
> >>
> >> > 3. you are using the original dataset simply
> for
> >> > reference purposes correct?
> >>
> >> The boundaries of the Urban Natural Areas are in
> .pdf
> >> format which are contained in a report. I am
> >> digitizing the boundaries based on these .pdf
> files.
> >> So, yes the maps are for reference purposes but
> I'm
> >> also digitizing the actual boundaries (my
> digitized
> >> boundaries would be similar to their boundaries).
> >>
> >> > 4. You are creating a new dataset based on the
> base
> >> > map reference. correct?
> >>
> >> The vector maps that will be the result of my
> >> digitizing would presumably be similar to the
> ones
> >> they have (if indeed they have a vector dataset).
> >>
> >> > 5. Were you going to share the file under a cc
> >> > license at all?  Were you
> >> > going to attribute the refence dataset you are
> >> > digitizing from (i.e. in the
> >> > metadata etc.)?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> > 6. You are not selling this information,
> correct?
> >>
> >> No, I won't be selling the information.
> >>
> >> > 7. Is the contractor's report a public
> document?
> >>
> >> I think it is. I actually got hold of the report
> from
> >> the public library. The whole report including
> the
> >> maps were in CDs at the back of the report so I
> copied
> >> everything and did the digitizing at home.
> >>
> >>
> >> > 8.  do those boundary files only exist in that
> >> > report or do they exist
> >> > elsewhere?
> >>
> >> I am not sure if the dataset also exist somewhere
> >> else.
> >>
> >> > 9. Does the city have that dataset?
> >>
> >> I am not sure. I will ask the contact person.
> >>
> >> > 10. You are replicating a file, in other words
> you
> >> > are replicating a
> >> > pre-existing work which means making a copy but
> in
> >> > another software.  Would
> >> > this be analogous to re-typing a quote from a
> book
> >> > in a new format?
> >>
> >> I'd like to find out if that is the case.
> >>
> >> > 11.  Who has the original copyright for that?
> The
> >> > report authors or the
> >> > city?
> >>
> >> I'd like to find out this one too.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Can anyone else help?
> >> >
> >> > Tracey
> >> >
>

=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
>
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss