[CivicAccess-discuss] copyright issues with extracting data from city report

[Russell McOrmond]

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!"