FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

As I suspected the OS has taken a hard line with respect to copyright and
publication date.

Cheers

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Customer Services [mailto:CustomerServices@...]
Sent: 13 October 2009 2:10 PM
To: blackadderajr@...
Subject: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)

 

Dear Mr Robinson

 

Ordnance Survey reference: 72267

 

Thank you for your email dated 30 September 2009 requesting: seeking
clarification regarding Crown Copyright status for those Ordnance Survey map
sheets which do not carry a specific Crown Copyright (c) date.  Please
provide confirmation of the date when, for the following hard copy printed
map sheet examples, Crown Copyright expired or will expire.

 

Example 1:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SU93. Print edition C//. Made and
published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
Surrey, 1948.  Reprinted with minor corrections 1960.

 

Example 2:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet NY21. Print edition C//. Made and
published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
Surrey, 1956.  Reprinted with minor changes 1963.

 

Example 3:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SO98. Print edition B///*. Made and
published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
Surrey, 1953.  Reprinted with the addition of new major roads 1967.

 

We are pleased to provide you with the following information with regard to
your request.

 

Crown copyright is retained for 50 years from the end of the year in which
the last date of publication on, in this instance, an Ordnance Survey map is
stated.  In the examples provided this means for example 1, from 31 December
1960 until the end of 2010; example 2 from 31 December 1963 until the end of
2013; and example 3 from 31 December 1967 until the end of 2017.

 

Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of Information
guidelines, though technically this request does not qualify under the FOIA
as this is not information which is held.  As this is the case, we have
determined that in all the circumstances of this case the Public interest
consideration (section 17 FOIA) is not applicable in this instance.

 

If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our Appeals
Officer at:

Complaints Team

Customer Service Centre

Ordnance Survey

Romsey Road

SOUTHAMPTON

SO16 4GU  

Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will ensure
that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any decisions
taken regarding the original response and recommending disclosure of
additional information if appropriate.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Yours sincerely

 

Tony Gray

Information Access Manager

(Freedom of Information)

Ordnance Survey

C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk customerservices@...

 

 

 

This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may
contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error,
please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied,
distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the
writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can
any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the
right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: [phone]
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk



_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Barnett, Phillip]

Doesn't this appear to contradict the advice given to Tim SC here?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:TimSC/CopyrightFOI




PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T [phone]
F
E PHILLIP.BARNETT@...
http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
-----Original Message-----

From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
Sent: 13 October 2009 15:33
To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)

As I suspected the OS has taken a hard line with respect to copyright and
publication date.

Cheers

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Customer Services [mailto:CustomerServices@...]
Sent: 13 October 2009 2:10 PM
To: blackadderajr@...
Subject: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)



Dear Mr Robinson



Ordnance Survey reference: 72267



Thank you for your email dated 30 September 2009 requesting: seeking
clarification regarding Crown Copyright status for those Ordnance Survey map
sheets which do not carry a specific Crown Copyright (c) date.  Please
provide confirmation of the date when, for the following hard copy printed
map sheet examples, Crown Copyright expired or will expire.



Example 1:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SU93. Print edition C//. Made and
published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
Surrey, 1948.  Reprinted with minor corrections 1960.



Example 2:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet NY21. Print edition C//. Made and
published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
Surrey, 1956.  Reprinted with minor changes 1963.



Example 3:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SO98. Print edition B///*. Made and
published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
Surrey, 1953.  Reprinted with the addition of new major roads 1967.



We are pleased to provide you with the following information with regard to
your request.



Crown copyright is retained for 50 years from the end of the year in which
the last date of publication on, in this instance, an Ordnance Survey map is
stated.  In the examples provided this means for example 1, from 31 December
1960 until the end of 2010; example 2 from 31 December 1963 until the end of
2013; and example 3 from 31 December 1967 until the end of 2017.



Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of Information
guidelines, though technically this request does not qualify under the FOIA
as this is not information which is held.  As this is the case, we have
determined that in all the circumstances of this case the Public interest
consideration (section 17 FOIA) is not applicable in this instance.



If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our Appeals
Officer at:

Complaints Team

Customer Service Centre

Ordnance Survey

Romsey Road

SOUTHAMPTON

SO16 4GU

Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will ensure
that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any decisions
taken regarding the original response and recommending disclosure of
additional information if appropriate.

Thank you for your enquiry.

Yours sincerely



Tony Gray

Information Access Manager

(Freedom of Information)

Ordnance Survey

C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk customerservices@...







This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may
contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error,
please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied,
distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the
writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can
any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the
right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: [phone]
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk



_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Please Note:

 

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify postmaster@...

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business,
we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.

Thank You.



_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

I'm comfortable that the OS has spoken. A map published with a (c) date
means the (c) date applies and if no (c) date printed then the last
publication date on the sheet applies.

At least we have a basis to move on though I think we could still appeal
this latest FOIA response.

Cheers

Andy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Barnett, Phillip
>Sent: 13 October 2009 3:47 PM
>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference
>72267)
>
>Doesn't this appear to contradict the advice given to Tim SC here?
>
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:TimSC/CopyrightFOI
>
>
>
>
>PHILLIP BARNETT
>SERVER MANAGER
>
>200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
>LONDON
>WC1X 8XZ
>UNITED KINGDOM
>T [phone]
>F
>E PHILLIP.BARNETT@...
>http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK
>P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>Sent: 13 October 2009 15:33
>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)
>
>As I suspected the OS has taken a hard line with respect to copyright and
>publication date.
>
>Cheers
>
>Andy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Customer Services [mailto:CustomerServices@...]
>Sent: 13 October 2009 2:10 PM
>To: blackadderajr@...
>Subject: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)
>
>
>
>Dear Mr Robinson
>
>
>
>Ordnance Survey reference: 72267
>
>
>
>Thank you for your email dated 30 September 2009 requesting: seeking
>clarification regarding Crown Copyright status for those Ordnance Survey
>map
>sheets which do not carry a specific Crown Copyright (c) date.  Please
>provide confirmation of the date when, for the following hard copy printed
>map sheet examples, Crown Copyright expired or will expire.
>
>
>
>Example 1:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SU93. Print edition C//. Made and
>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>Surrey, 1948.  Reprinted with minor corrections 1960.
>
>
>
>Example 2:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet NY21. Print edition C//. Made and
>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>Surrey, 1956.  Reprinted with minor changes 1963.
>
>
>
>Example 3:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SO98. Print edition B///*. Made
>and
>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>Surrey, 1953.  Reprinted with the addition of new major roads 1967.
>
>
>
>We are pleased to provide you with the following information with regard to
>your request.
>
>
>
>Crown copyright is retained for 50 years from the end of the year in which
>the last date of publication on, in this instance, an Ordnance Survey map
>is
>stated.  In the examples provided this means for example 1, from 31
>December
>1960 until the end of 2010; example 2 from 31 December 1963 until the end
>of
>2013; and example 3 from 31 December 1967 until the end of 2017.
>
>
>
>Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of Information
>guidelines, though technically this request does not qualify under the FOIA
>as this is not information which is held.  As this is the case, we have
>determined that in all the circumstances of this case the Public interest
>consideration (section 17 FOIA) is not applicable in this instance.
>
>
>
>If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our
>Appeals
>Officer at:
>
>Complaints Team
>
>Customer Service Centre
>
>Ordnance Survey
>
>Romsey Road
>
>SOUTHAMPTON
>
>SO16 4GU
>
>Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will ensure
>that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any decisions
>taken regarding the original response and recommending disclosure of
>additional information if appropriate.
>
>Thank you for your enquiry.
>
>Yours sincerely
>
>
>
>Tony Gray
>
>Information Access Manager
>
>(Freedom of Information)
>
>Ordnance Survey
>
>C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
>Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
>www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk customerservices@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may
>contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error,
>please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied,
>distributed or disclosed to any other person.
>
>Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the
>writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can
>any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve
>the
>right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.
>
>Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>Ordnance Survey
>Romsey Road
>Southampton SO16 4GU
>Tel: [phone]
>http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@...
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>Please Note:
>
>
>
>Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
>represent
>those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
>This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for
>the use of the individual
>or entity to which they are addressed.
>If you have received this email in error, please notify
>postmaster@...
>
>Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
>our clients and business,
>we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.
>
>Thank You.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@...
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Barnett, Phillip]

Andy,

Crown copyright maps, and books, are reprinted all the time. Copyright dates stay the same, generally.
The crux point is what triggers a new copyright date.

Guidance notes from the OPSI -
"A new edition of a published work which contains substantial revisions would normally qualify as a new copyright work. For example, if a department first published a document in 1997 and subsequently revised and reissued it in 2004, the notice in the revised version would indicate the copyright date of 2004, although it would be customary - and helpful - to state that an earlier version had been issued in 1997. A reprint or new impression without any substantial changes to the text would not constitute a new copyright work."

The last sentence is the important one - of the examples that you sent to them below, all explicitly claim 'minor' changes to the work, and so the OPSI guidelines indicate that no copyright date change would be the case, which is presumably why the maps were never printed with a revised copyright date in the first place.

'Reprinted with minor corrections 1960'
'Reprinted with minor changes 1963.'
'Reprinted with the addition of new major roads 1967.' - this one is possibly debateable as it contains the word 'major'  - substitute 'A roads' for 'major roads' and I contend it qualifies as minor changes.

So the situation should be -
A map published with a (c) date means the (c) date applies and if no (c) date printed then the FIRST publication date on the sheet applies.
And we have plenty of examples collected of where the revision date is later than the explicitly printed copyright date, which rather proves my point. (eg my copy of SO13, Talgarth, (c) 1951, major road revisions 1976)

Now, who's going to take this up with Tony Gray? (I'm happy to argue the point, if you don't mind my quoting your correspondence. Otherwise I'll just point him to the OPSI guidance)

Cheers
Phillip




-----Original Message-----
From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
Sent: 13 October 2009 15:59
To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)

I'm comfortable that the OS has spoken. A map published with a (c) date
means the (c) date applies and if no (c) date printed then the last
publication date on the sheet applies.

At least we have a basis to move on though I think we could still appeal
this latest FOIA response.

Cheers

Andy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Barnett, Phillip
>Sent: 13 October 2009 3:47 PM
>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference
>72267)
>
>Doesn't this appear to contradict the advice given to Tim SC here?
>
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:TimSC/CopyrightFOI
>
>
>
>
>PHILLIP BARNETT
>SERVER MANAGER
>
>200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
>LONDON
>WC1X 8XZ
>UNITED KINGDOM
>T [phone]
>F
>E PHILLIP.BARNETT@...
>http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK
>P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>Sent: 13 October 2009 15:33
>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)
>
>As I suspected the OS has taken a hard line with respect to copyright and
>publication date.
>
>Cheers
>
>Andy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Customer Services [mailto:CustomerServices@...]
>Sent: 13 October 2009 2:10 PM
>To: blackadderajr@...
>Subject: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)
>
>
>
>Dear Mr Robinson
>
>
>
>Ordnance Survey reference: 72267
>
>
>
>Thank you for your email dated 30 September 2009 requesting: seeking
>clarification regarding Crown Copyright status for those Ordnance Survey
>map
>sheets which do not carry a specific Crown Copyright (c) date.  Please
>provide confirmation of the date when, for the following hard copy printed
>map sheet examples, Crown Copyright expired or will expire.
>
>
>
>Example 1:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SU93. Print edition C//. Made and
>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>Surrey, 1948.  Reprinted with minor corrections 1960.
>
>
>
>Example 2:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet NY21. Print edition C//. Made and
>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>Surrey, 1956.  Reprinted with minor changes 1963.
>
>
>
>Example 3:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SO98. Print edition B///*. Made
>and
>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>Surrey, 1953.  Reprinted with the addition of new major roads 1967.
>
>
>
>We are pleased to provide you with the following information with regard to
>your request.
>
>
>
>Crown copyright is retained for 50 years from the end of the year in which
>the last date of publication on, in this instance, an Ordnance Survey map
>is
>stated.  In the examples provided this means for example 1, from 31
>December
>1960 until the end of 2010; example 2 from 31 December 1963 until the end
>of
>2013; and example 3 from 31 December 1967 until the end of 2017.
>
>
>
>Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of Information
>guidelines, though technically this request does not qualify under the FOIA
>as this is not information which is held.  As this is the case, we have
>determined that in all the circumstances of this case the Public interest
>consideration (section 17 FOIA) is not applicable in this instance.
>
>
>
>If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our
>Appeals
>Officer at:
>
>Complaints Team
>
>Customer Service Centre
>
>Ordnance Survey
>
>Romsey Road
>
>SOUTHAMPTON
>
>SO16 4GU
>
>Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will ensure
>that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any decisions
>taken regarding the original response and recommending disclosure of
>additional information if appropriate.
>
>Thank you for your enquiry.
>
>Yours sincerely
>
>
>
>Tony Gray
>
>Information Access Manager
>
>(Freedom of Information)
>
>Ordnance Survey
>
>C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
>Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
>www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk customerservices@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may
>contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error,
>please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied,
>distributed or disclosed to any other person.
>
>Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the
>writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can
>any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve
>the
>right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.
>
>Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>Ordnance Survey
>Romsey Road
>Southampton SO16 4GU
>Tel: [phone]
>http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@...
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>Please Note:
>
>
>
>Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
>represent
>those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
>This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for
>the use of the individual
>or entity to which they are addressed.
>If you have received this email in error, please notify
>postmaster@...
>
>Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
>our clients and business,
>we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.
>
>Thank You.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@...
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Please Note:

 

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify postmaster@...

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business,
we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.

Thank You.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Phillip,

That's where I was coming from and specifically why I quoted the examples I
did. I certainly think its worth an appeal (but perhaps discussion with them
first) in line with what you say. I don't really know why the 1:25 first
services was so hit and miss with a printed (c). very few have them (mostly
a few in the 1950's). All the early editions just have the format as per my
examples but without the revision.

Incidentally the vast majority of these maps only have minor changes or
minor corrections. Just a handful have major changes.

Happy for you to lead the way here.

Cheers

Andy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Barnett, Phillip
>Sent: 13 October 2009 6:00 PM
>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference
>72267)
>
>Andy,
>
>Crown copyright maps, and books, are reprinted all the time. Copyright
>dates stay the same, generally.
>The crux point is what triggers a new copyright date.
>
>Guidance notes from the OPSI -
>"A new edition of a published work which contains substantial revisions
>would normally qualify as a new copyright work. For example, if a
>department first published a document in 1997 and subsequently revised and
>reissued it in 2004, the notice in the revised version would indicate the
>copyright date of 2004, although it would be customary - and helpful - to
>state that an earlier version had been issued in 1997. A reprint or new
>impression without any substantial changes to the text would not constitute
>a new copyright work."
>
>The last sentence is the important one - of the examples that you sent to
>them below, all explicitly claim 'minor' changes to the work, and so the
>OPSI guidelines indicate that no copyright date change would be the case,
>which is presumably why the maps were never printed with a revised
>copyright date in the first place.
>
>'Reprinted with minor corrections 1960'
>'Reprinted with minor changes 1963.'
>'Reprinted with the addition of new major roads 1967.' - this one is
>possibly debateable as it contains the word 'major'  - substitute 'A roads'
>for 'major roads' and I contend it qualifies as minor changes.
>
>So the situation should be -
>A map published with a (c) date means the (c) date applies and if no (c)
>date printed then the FIRST publication date on the sheet applies.
>And we have plenty of examples collected of where the revision date is
>later than the explicitly printed copyright date, which rather proves my
>point. (eg my copy of SO13, Talgarth, (c) 1951, major road revisions 1976)
>
>Now, who's going to take this up with Tony Gray? (I'm happy to argue the
>point, if you don't mind my quoting your correspondence. Otherwise I'll
>just point him to the OPSI guidance)
>
>Cheers
>Phillip
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>Sent: 13 October 2009 15:59
>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference
>72267)
>
>I'm comfortable that the OS has spoken. A map published with a (c) date
>means the (c) date applies and if no (c) date printed then the last
>publication date on the sheet applies.
>
>At least we have a basis to move on though I think we could still appeal
>this latest FOIA response.
>
>Cheers
>
>Andy
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Barnett, Phillip
>>Sent: 13 October 2009 3:47 PM
>>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference
>>72267)
>>
>>Doesn't this appear to contradict the advice given to Tim SC here?
>>
>>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:TimSC/CopyrightFOI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>PHILLIP BARNETT
>>SERVER MANAGER
>>
>>200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
>>LONDON
>>WC1X 8XZ
>>UNITED KINGDOM
>>T [phone]
>>F
>>E PHILLIP.BARNETT@...
>>http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK
>>P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this
>email?
>>-----Original Message-----
>>
>>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>>Sent: 13 October 2009 15:33
>>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>>Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)
>>
>>As I suspected the OS has taken a hard line with respect to copyright and
>>publication date.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Andy
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Customer Services [mailto:CustomerServices@...]
>>Sent: 13 October 2009 2:10 PM
>>To: blackadderajr@...
>>Subject: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear Mr Robinson
>>
>>
>>
>>Ordnance Survey reference: 72267
>>
>>
>>
>>Thank you for your email dated 30 September 2009 requesting: seeking
>>clarification regarding Crown Copyright status for those Ordnance Survey
>>map
>>sheets which do not carry a specific Crown Copyright (c) date.  Please
>>provide confirmation of the date when, for the following hard copy printed
>>map sheet examples, Crown Copyright expired or will expire.
>>
>>
>>
>>Example 1:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SU93. Print edition C//. Made and
>>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>>Surrey, 1948.  Reprinted with minor corrections 1960.
>>
>>
>>
>>Example 2:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet NY21. Print edition C//. Made and
>>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>>Surrey, 1956.  Reprinted with minor changes 1963.
>>
>>
>>
>>Example 3:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SO98. Print edition B///*. Made
>>and
>>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>>Surrey, 1953.  Reprinted with the addition of new major roads 1967.
>>
>>
>>
>>We are pleased to provide you with the following information with regard
>to
>>your request.
>>
>>
>>
>>Crown copyright is retained for 50 years from the end of the year in which
>>the last date of publication on, in this instance, an Ordnance Survey map
>>is
>>stated.  In the examples provided this means for example 1, from 31
>>December
>>1960 until the end of 2010; example 2 from 31 December 1963 until the end
>>of
>>2013; and example 3 from 31 December 1967 until the end of 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>>Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of Information
>>guidelines, though technically this request does not qualify under the
>FOIA
>>as this is not information which is held.  As this is the case, we have
>>determined that in all the circumstances of this case the Public interest
>>consideration (section 17 FOIA) is not applicable in this instance.
>>
>>
>>
>>If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our
>>Appeals
>>Officer at:
>>
>>Complaints Team
>>
>>Customer Service Centre
>>
>>Ordnance Survey
>>
>>Romsey Road
>>
>>SOUTHAMPTON
>>
>>SO16 4GU
>>
>>Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will ensure
>>that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any decisions
>>taken regarding the original response and recommending disclosure of
>>additional information if appropriate.
>>
>>Thank you for your enquiry.
>>
>>Yours sincerely
>>
>>
>>
>>Tony Gray
>>
>>Information Access Manager
>>
>>(Freedom of Information)
>>
>>Ordnance Survey
>>
>>C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
>>Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
>>www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk customerservices@...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may
>>contain confidential information. If you have received this email in
>error,
>>please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied,
>>distributed or disclosed to any other person.
>>
>>Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the
>>writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can
>>any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve
>>the
>>right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.
>>
>>Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>>Ordnance Survey
>>Romsey Road
>>Southampton SO16 4GU
>>Tel: [phone]
>>http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>legal-talk mailing list
>>legal-talk@...
>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>>Please Note:
>>
>>
>>
>>Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not
>necessarily
>>represent
>>those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
>>This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for
>>the use of the individual
>>or entity to which they are addressed.
>>If you have received this email in error, please notify
>>postmaster@...
>>
>>Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
>>our clients and business,
>>we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.
>>
>>Thank You.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>legal-talk mailing list
>>legal-talk@...
>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@...
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>Please Note:
>
>
>
>Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
>represent
>those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
>This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for
>the use of the individual
>or entity to which they are addressed.
>If you have received this email in error, please notify
>postmaster@...
>
>Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
>our clients and business,
>we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.
>
>Thank You.
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@...
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Barnett, Phillip]

Yes, I thought you were probably working along those lines, but I thought the quote I dug up was worth repeating, as it bears directly on the central point of the argument.

Re - erratic copyright notation - Crown copyright changed emphasis  with the 1956 Crown Copyright Act,  so I guess they got more pro-active about putting dates on round about then. That's just a guess though - perhaps the Charles Close Society could tell us more. They also seemed very uncertain about all the styles of the 1:25000 maps during that period, changing formats every few years, so it's probably all part of that.
Bear in mind that they intended the range to be resurveyed fairly quickly as they were only done from old surveys anyway - so they probably assumed there wouldn't be any major reworking so the first publish date would suffice.

>Happy for you to lead the way here.
OK, I'll try this angle with them and see where we get to.

Cheers
________________________________________
From: legal-talk-bounces@... [legal-talk-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists) [ajrlists@...]
Sent: 14 October 2009 00:45
To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)

Phillip,

That's where I was coming from and specifically why I quoted the examples I
did. I certainly think its worth an appeal (but perhaps discussion with them
first) in line with what you say. I don't really know why the 1:25 first
services was so hit and miss with a printed (c). very few have them (mostly
a few in the 1950's). All the early editions just have the format as per my
examples but without the revision.

Incidentally the vast majority of these maps only have minor changes or
minor corrections. Just a handful have major changes.



Cheers

Andy

>-----Original Message-----
>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Barnett, Phillip
>Sent: 13 October 2009 6:00 PM
>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference
>72267)
>
>Andy,
>
>Crown copyright maps, and books, are reprinted all the time. Copyright
>dates stay the same, generally.
>The crux point is what triggers a new copyright date.
>
>Guidance notes from the OPSI -
>"A new edition of a published work which contains substantial revisions
>would normally qualify as a new copyright work. For example, if a
>department first published a document in 1997 and subsequently revised and
>reissued it in 2004, the notice in the revised version would indicate the
>copyright date of 2004, although it would be customary - and helpful - to
>state that an earlier version had been issued in 1997. A reprint or new
>impression without any substantial changes to the text would not constitute
>a new copyright work."
>
>The last sentence is the important one - of the examples that you sent to
>them below, all explicitly claim 'minor' changes to the work, and so the
>OPSI guidelines indicate that no copyright date change would be the case,
>which is presumably why the maps were never printed with a revised
>copyright date in the first place.
>
>'Reprinted with minor corrections 1960'
>'Reprinted with minor changes 1963.'
>'Reprinted with the addition of new major roads 1967.' - this one is
>possibly debateable as it contains the word 'major'  - substitute 'A roads'
>for 'major roads' and I contend it qualifies as minor changes.
>
>So the situation should be -
>A map published with a (c) date means the (c) date applies and if no (c)
>date printed then the FIRST publication date on the sheet applies.
>And we have plenty of examples collected of where the revision date is
>later than the explicitly printed copyright date, which rather proves my
>point. (eg my copy of SO13, Talgarth, (c) 1951, major road revisions 1976)
>
>Now, who's going to take this up with Tony Gray? (I'm happy to argue the
>point, if you don't mind my quoting your correspondence. Otherwise I'll
>just point him to the OPSI guidance)
>
>Cheers
>Phillip
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>Sent: 13 October 2009 15:59
>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference
>72267)
>
>I'm comfortable that the OS has spoken. A map published with a (c) date
>means the (c) date applies and if no (c) date printed then the last
>publication date on the sheet applies.
>
>At least we have a basis to move on though I think we could still appeal
>this latest FOIA response.
>
>Cheers
>
>Andy
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Barnett, Phillip
>>Sent: 13 October 2009 3:47 PM
>>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference
>>72267)
>>
>>Doesn't this appear to contradict the advice given to Tim SC here?
>>
>>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:TimSC/CopyrightFOI
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>PHILLIP BARNETT
>>SERVER MANAGER
>>
>>200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
>>LONDON
>>WC1X 8XZ
>>UNITED KINGDOM
>>T [phone]
>>F
>>E PHILLIP.BARNETT@...
>>http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK
>>P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this
>email?
>>-----Original Message-----
>>
>>From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-
>>bounces@...] On Behalf Of Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)
>>Sent: 13 October 2009 15:33
>>To: 'Licensing and other legal discussions.'
>>Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)
>>
>>As I suspected the OS has taken a hard line with respect to copyright and
>>publication date.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Andy
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Customer Services [mailto:CustomerServices@...]
>>Sent: 13 October 2009 2:10 PM
>>To: blackadderajr@...
>>Subject: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear Mr Robinson
>>
>>
>>
>>Ordnance Survey reference: 72267
>>
>>
>>
>>Thank you for your email dated 30 September 2009 requesting: seeking
>>clarification regarding Crown Copyright status for those Ordnance Survey
>>map
>>sheets which do not carry a specific Crown Copyright (c) date.  Please
>>provide confirmation of the date when, for the following hard copy printed
>>map sheet examples, Crown Copyright expired or will expire.
>>
>>
>>
>>Example 1:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SU93. Print edition C//. Made and
>>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>>Surrey, 1948.  Reprinted with minor corrections 1960.
>>
>>
>>
>>Example 2:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet NY21. Print edition C//. Made and
>>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>>Surrey, 1956.  Reprinted with minor changes 1963.
>>
>>
>>
>>Example 3:  1:25,000 First Series. Sheet SO98. Print edition B///*. Made
>>and
>>published by the Director General of the Ordnance Survey, Chessington,
>>Surrey, 1953.  Reprinted with the addition of new major roads 1967.
>>
>>
>>
>>We are pleased to provide you with the following information with regard
>to
>>your request.
>>
>>
>>
>>Crown copyright is retained for 50 years from the end of the year in which
>>the last date of publication on, in this instance, an Ordnance Survey map
>>is
>>stated.  In the examples provided this means for example 1, from 31
>>December
>>1960 until the end of 2010; example 2 from 31 December 1963 until the end
>>of
>>2013; and example 3 from 31 December 1967 until the end of 2017.
>>
>>
>>
>>Please note that your enquiry has been processed to Freedom of Information
>>guidelines, though technically this request does not qualify under the
>FOIA
>>as this is not information which is held.  As this is the case, we have
>>determined that in all the circumstances of this case the Public interest
>>consideration (section 17 FOIA) is not applicable in this instance.
>>
>>
>>
>>If you are unhappy with our response, you may raise an appeal to our
>>Appeals
>>Officer at:
>>
>>Complaints Team
>>
>>Customer Service Centre
>>
>>Ordnance Survey
>>
>>Romsey Road
>>
>>SOUTHAMPTON
>>
>>SO16 4GU
>>
>>Please include the reference number above. The Appeals Officer will ensure
>>that the process has been followed correctly, questioning any decisions
>>taken regarding the original response and recommending disclosure of
>>additional information if appropriate.
>>
>>Thank you for your enquiry.
>>
>>Yours sincerely
>>
>>
>>
>>Tony Gray
>>
>>Information Access Manager
>>
>>(Freedom of Information)
>>
>>Ordnance Survey
>>
>>C454, Romsey Road, SOUTHAMPTON, United Kingdom, SO16 4GU
>>Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
>>www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk customerservices@...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may
>>contain confidential information. If you have received this email in
>error,
>>please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied,
>>distributed or disclosed to any other person.
>>
>>Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the
>>writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can
>>any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve
>>the
>>right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.
>>
>>Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>>Ordnance Survey
>>Romsey Road
>>Southampton SO16 4GU
>>Tel: [phone]
>>http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>legal-talk mailing list
>>legal-talk@...
>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>>Please Note:
>>
>>
>>
>>Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not
>necessarily
>>represent
>>those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
>>This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for
>>the use of the individual
>>or entity to which they are addressed.
>>If you have received this email in error, please notify
>>postmaster@...
>>
>>Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
>>our clients and business,
>>we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.
>>
>>Thank You.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>legal-talk mailing list
>>legal-talk@...
>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@...
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>Please Note:
>
>
>
>Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
>represent
>those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
>This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for
>the use of the individual
>or entity to which they are addressed.
>If you have received this email in error, please notify
>postmaster@...
>
>Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
>our clients and business,
>we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.
>
>Thank You.
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@...
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Please Note:

 

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify postmaster@...

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business,
we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.

Thank You.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Ed Avis-2]

Barnett, Phillip <PHILLIP.BARNETT@...> writes:

>The crux point is what triggers a new copyright date.
>
>Guidance notes from the OPSI -

>"A reprint or new impression without any substantial changes to the text would
>not constitute a new copyright work."
>
>The last sentence is the important one - of the examples that you sent to them
>below, all explicitly claim 'minor' changes to the work, and so the OPSI
>guidelines indicate that no copyright date change would be the
>case,

Not so.  'Minor changes' is not the same as 'no substantial changes'.  If they
have revised the map based on resurveying the area, even if just to add a
couple of new roads or a housing development, or to correct mistakes,
it's pretty clear that a new copyright period comes into existence.

>So the situation should be -
>A map published with a (c) date means the (c) date applies and if no (c) date
>printed then the FIRST publication date on the sheet applies.

No, if no copyright date is there then the most recent revision applies.
If the map was first issued in 1950, revised in 1960, then reprinted with
no changes (or no substantial changes, e.g. just a new cover sheet) in 1970,
then the copyright period is from 1960 onwards.

>And we have plenty of examples collected of where the revision date is later
>than the explicitly printed copyright date, which rather proves my point. (eg
>my copy of SO13, Talgarth, (c) 1951, major road revisions 1976)

That does argue for your position but I don't think it is strong enough
evidence.

>Now, who's going to take this up with Tony Gray? (I'm happy to argue the
>point, if you don't mind my quoting your correspondence. Otherwise I'll just
>point him to the OPSI guidance)

Would it not be better to get a legal opinion?

--
Ed Avis <eda@...>


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)]

Ed Avis wrote:

>Sent: 15 October 2009 11:34 AM
>To: legal-talk@...
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference
>72267)
>
>Barnett, Phillip <PHILLIP.BARNETT@...> writes:
>
>>The crux point is what triggers a new copyright date.
>>
>>Guidance notes from the OPSI -
>
>>"A reprint or new impression without any substantial changes to the text
>would
>>not constitute a new copyright work."
>>
>>The last sentence is the important one - of the examples that you sent to
>them
>>below, all explicitly claim 'minor' changes to the work, and so the OPSI
>>guidelines indicate that no copyright date change would be the
>>case,
>
>Not so.  'Minor changes' is not the same as 'no substantial changes'.  If
>they
>have revised the map based on resurveying the area, even if just to add a
>couple of new roads or a housing development, or to correct mistakes,
>it's pretty clear that a new copyright period comes into existence.

How so? Can you provide some evidence of why this is the case?

>
>>So the situation should be -
>>A map published with a (c) date means the (c) date applies and if no (c)
>date
>>printed then the FIRST publication date on the sheet applies.
>
>No, if no copyright date is there then the most recent revision applies.
>If the map was first issued in 1950, revised in 1960, then reprinted with
>no changes (or no substantial changes, e.g. just a new cover sheet) in
>1970,
>then the copyright period is from 1960 onwards.
>

Well, the question is surely whether the changes made were substantial or
not. Almost without question the reprints of the 1:25k sheets between major
republications (and new published dates) of the same map are stated to be
either minor corrections or minor changes. Mostly this I believe is road
alignment adjustment and occasionally a new road here and there.

>>And we have plenty of examples collected of where the revision date is
>later
>>than the explicitly printed copyright date, which rather proves my point.
>(eg
>>my copy of SO13, Talgarth, (c) 1951, major road revisions 1976)
>
>That does argue for your position but I don't think it is strong enough
>evidence.
>

Which is why I sought clarification. But I'm not convinced that the OS has
ruled correctly and so it's worth further discussion and if necessary
appeal.

>>Now, who's going to take this up with Tony Gray? (I'm happy to argue the
>>point, if you don't mind my quoting your correspondence. Otherwise I'll
>just
>>point him to the OPSI guidance)
>
>Would it not be better to get a legal opinion?

If you are offering to pay for one that would be great. Seems to me that we
have some opportunities for discussion first and even an appeal draft,
though before that is sent I do think it would be wise to pass it across
legal.

Cheers

Andy


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Barnett, Phillip]

PHILLIP BARNETT
SERVER MANAGER

200 GRAY'S INN ROAD
LONDON
WC1X 8XZ
UNITED KINGDOM
T [phone]
F
E PHILLIP.BARNETT@...
http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P  Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
-----Original Message-----

From: legal-talk-bounces@... [mailto:legal-talk-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Ed Avis
Sent: 15 October 2009 11:34
To: legal-talk@...
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] FW: Crown copyright dates ( OS Reference 72267)

Ed Avis wrote:

>Would it not be better to get a legal opinion?

Ed,
Unfortunately we can't afford to pay copyright lawyers. (Or to fight the OS in the courts)
But we can read case law:

"I think it clear that it will not create copyright in a new edition of a work, of which the copyright has expired, merely to make a few emendations of the text, or to add a few unimportant notes. To create a copyright by alterations of the text, these must be extensive and substantial, practically making a new book. With regard to notes, in like manner they must exhibit an addition to the work which is not superficial or colourable, but imparts to the book a true and real value, over and above that belonging to the text. This value may perhaps be rightly expressed by saying that the book will procure purchasers in the market on special account of these notes. When notes to this extent and of this value are added, I cannot doubt that they attach to the edition the privilege of copyright."
Lord Kinloch, Black v Murray 1870
http://www.ipsofactoj.com/international/2002/Part10/int2002%2810%29-008.htm

As has been pointed out by Andy and myself, the OS themselves appear to have shared this view at least in the past, by explicitly not claiming new copyright on certain maps when printing new editions with 'minor revisions'.

Obviously this still doesn't get us anywhere if OS maintain the stance quoted recently - we're definitely not going to take it to judicial review!
But it may be worth further dialogue with the OS to see if they might re-examine the evidence.

If not, we'll just map it ourselves anyway, a little slower!!!

Cheers

Phillip

Please Note:

 

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated.
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify postmaster@...

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business,
we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems.

Thank You.



_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Ed Avis-2]

Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists <ajrlists@...> writes:

>>>The crux point is what triggers a new copyright date.

>>>"A reprint or new impression without any substantial changes to the text
>>>would not constitute a new copyright work."

>>'Minor changes' is not the same as 'no substantial changes'.  If
>>they have revised the map based on resurveying the area, even if just
>>to add a couple of new roads or a housing development, or to correct
>>mistakes, it's pretty clear that a new copyright period comes into
>>existence.
>
>How so? Can you provide some evidence of why this is the case?

A couple of reasons come to mind.  Firstly, that doing some new surveying
work must mean that the new data has a copyright date starting from now.
The fact that the area had previously been surveyed and this was a repeat
visit surely wouldn't mean it is not copyrightable.  So, then, if you have
a mixture of old and new survey data, the mixture taken as a whole will
not enter the public domain until the copyright on the new additions expires.
It is impractical to buy an OS map and manually excise any additions
made after a certain date - to do that, you would need an old map to refer
to, and if so why not just use the old map?  It would also be hard to
convince a court that you did trace from a map containing both old and new
survey data, but scrupulously restricted yourself (somehow) to only
tracing from the part that is older than 50 years.

Also, I think the guideline cited has led to a false analogy with literary
works.  The intention is to say that a reprint with only a spelling correction,
say, or a re-typesetting of the existing text, or perhaps the addition of
chapter headings, does not create a new copyright.  By this argument you
might say that if the OS published a map in black and white and then later
colorized it by some purely mechanical, no-thought-required process, the new
map would not have a later copyright date.

However, if they have added real new information, such as new roads or even
correcting the position of old ones, this is more analogous to adding new
sentences to an article or even adding a new minor character to a story.
In such cases the changes may be 'minor', but they are certainly *substantial*,
and by a sweat-of-the-brow test would be subject to copyright.

>Well, the question is surely whether the changes made were substantial or
>not. Almost without question the reprints of the 1:25k sheets between major
>republications (and new published dates) of the same map are stated to be
>either minor corrections or minor changes. Mostly this I believe is road
>alignment adjustment and occasionally a new road here and there.

Yes.  But 'minor' is not the same as 'not substantial'.

To my eyes, a 'not substantial' change might be changing typeface or
perhaps correcting an obvious spelling error - but fixing the alignment
of maps is certainly not an easy task, and adding new roads requires work
to survey them.

>But I'm not convinced that the OS has ruled correctly and so it's worth
>further discussion and if necessary appeal.

Well, they do not 'rule' on anything.  They will tell you their opinion,
and in cases where the law is pretty unambiguous (such as the length of
the copyright being 50 years) their opinion will just confirm what the law
says, but is still useful just to check.  However in cases like this the
OS's opinion is likely to be whatever interpretation of the law best
suits their interests.  They are unlikely to change it unless you can
give real evidence that they are wrong (and ultimately, be able to put
a test case through the courts).

>>Would it not be better to get a legal opinion?
>
>If you are offering to pay for one that would be great.

I wonder how much it would cost.

--
Ed Avis <eda@...>


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk