Paul,
I was attempting to simplify a vastly complex issue, should have used
Copyright however derived rather than Crown Copyright. You are indeed
correct. Both the EA and BGS/NERC are IFTS certified bodies; ie they
administer their own copyright and IP. FYI- our copyright statements reflect
this.
Note to self- don’t try to type and talk on the phone at the same time.....
Best Regards,
Jon Coleman
Environmental Business Manager
DDI: 020 7156 5173
33 Throgmorton Street, London, EC3N 2BR
E [log in to unmask] T 020 7156 5184
Support 0845 521 1410 www.findmaps.co.uk
Read our Blog Follow us on Twitter View our complete product
list
Winners of the British Cartographic Society Ordnance Survey MasterMap Award
for Better Mapping 2007
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul
Nathanail
Sent: 29 June 2011 15:53
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Environment Agency Data
Dear Jonathan
I think you had better revisit your copyright statements - BGS material is
NOT crown copyright but copyright to NERC.
kind regards
Paul Nathanail
________________________________________
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Coleman
[[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 29 June 2011 13:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Environment Agency Data
Perhaps someone from the EA could comment on this thread....
Gareth,
Definition from the EA on commercial use:
Commercial use means use that is not Public Task Use.......
As a provider of both EA and BGS data I can assure everyone that the
datasets are covered by Crown Copyright, which doesn't just apply to O/S, it
fully includes any overlaid datasets. In fact the exact usage and licence
terms vary for different datasets from the EA and the BGS, and getting
increasingly complex. We as a supplier are required to let our clients know
of these licencing terms, how long the data can be viewed for, how long it
can be reprinted for. Further we have to send clients a licence reminder
when the licence is about to expire, asking them to renew or permanently
archive the data.
In short I frankly think it's a more effective option to go through and get
the data via an auditable source where you can be assured that you are fully
complying with any dataset legalities. Exactly how free the data should be
is always up for debate and has been for sometime, many have argued that the
EA should be a free service. The simple fact is that the EA has to pay fees
to third parties who collect information on their behalf...They are merely
attempting to recover their costs by charging royalties for data use. An
interesting article on the last big showdown the EA had on this issue...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jul/05/guardianweeklytechnologysec
tion.freeourdata
Jon Coleman
Environmental Business Manager
DDI: 020 7156 5173
33 Throgmorton Street, London, EC3N 2BR
E [log in to unmask] T 020 7156 5184
Support 0845 521 1410 www.findmaps.co.uk
Read our Blog Follow us on Twitter View our complete product
list
Winners of the British Cartographic Society Ordnance Survey MasterMap Award
for Better Mapping 2007
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gareth
Rees
Sent: 29 June 2011 12:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Environment Agency Data
Morning all
"My interpretation of the EAs terms and conditions is that "You must not
make any Commercial use of the Information", this would include the EA
data. I don't agree with their terms but that is a different matter."
This depends a lot on your definition of commercial use my opinion which
I apply to pubic information the authorities I work for holds and
generate is below
As a consultant you are not charging someone for access to the
information on a commercial basis i.e. in the manner of landmark et. al.
. You are making assumptions and decisions based on the data and
providing it for reference only .
The information holds no commercial value to the consultant and the
charge for access to that information is passed on to the client. If the
consultant does not profit from the provision of this information my
opinion is this does not count as a commercial use of the data
It is the consultant's opinion which holds commercial value and is the
commercial activity being carried out. The consultant's opinion on said
data would not change if said data is attached as an appendix to the
report or not. i.e. it is only attached for reference as this
information may change in the future and the consultant can say this is
the information the advice was based on. (as an example updates to BGS
maps, new historical maps being found etc)
There is a liability on the consultant that the information is accurate
and correct and the consultant can pass some/all of this liability onto
a third party supplier dependant on the terms and conditions.
Thanks
Gareth Rees Mgeol (HONS) FGS
Contaminated Land Officer
Harborough District Council
Council Offices
Adam and Eve Street
Market Harborough
Leicestershire
LE16 7AG
Telephone: 01858 82 1174
Email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Lancefield, Robin
Sent: 29 June 2011 11:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Environment Agency Data
Jonathan,
My non-legal take on this.
"An SI has been carried out for client x, 3 years ago. Client y has now
purchased the site and included this original report (it is supplemented
by a different consultant's additional SI report). If the consultants
have assessed both sets of data properly and included confirmation that
they acknowledge that they cannot rely on this data fully, is this
reasonable?"
As I see this, the developer is responsible for the site. If things go
wrong they are first in the chain to have to pay to put it right. If
they have employed a consultant, and the consultant has made a mistake,
the consultants PI cover comes into play. If the developer cannot rely
on the consultants report, i.e. they didn't pay for it and haven't had
the report assigned to them, this is the developers problem. Therefore,
I do not see why you need to check whether whether the developer can
rely on the reports or the consultants PI cover - this is a matter
between the Developer and the consultant.
"If a consultant goes out of business, should I refuse to review any of
their reports in future as they will not have PI cover? Should I check
that they are solvent before accepting the report?"
Same as above - this is a matter between the Developer and the
consultant, if the Developer cannot claim from the consultants PI this
is their problem not yours.
"Most consultant's reports I receive which include third party reports,
do state that they are not placing any reliance on the third party data.
I believe that it is reasonable to use this data, and any competent
consultant would be remis NOT to review it as it is relevant."
Agree, and I can't see too much wrong with this use of a report (my
opinion). However, there is no comeback on the supplier of the report
in most circumstances.
I'm not 100% sure on copyright issues. However infringement of
copyright does not make a report incorrect, but it is an issue for the
copyright holder.
My interpretation of the EAs terms and conditions is that "You must not
make any Commercial use of the Information", this would include the EA
data. I don't agree with their terms but that is a different matter.
Regards,
Robin Lancefield
Senior Consultant,
Halcrow Group Ltd
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
CUNDALL, Jonathan
Sent: 29 June 2011 10:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Environment Agency Data
Morning All,
As a regulator, I am asked to review and confirm acceptance of reports.
I am aware of copyright and licencing issues that apply to reports and
data contained therein. The recent changes to OS Opendata/BGS geodata
etc has made this matter a bit more murky as some data can be freely
reused for any purpose, others can be used with copyright
acknowledgement and others can't be used without a licence.
It would be useful if someone can provide a link/guide which would no
doubt assist all regulators (and some consultants) to understand the
legal position of this sort of information.
I frequently come across issues like this. For example:
A PRA is prepared for one client who submits it in support of a planning
application. The same report is submitted for the same site a year
later but for a different client.
An SI has been carried out for client x, 3 years ago. Client y has now
purchased the site and included this original report (it is supplimented
by a different consultant's additional SI report). If the consultants
have assessed both sets of data properly and included confirmation that
they acknowledge that they cannot rely on this data fully, is this
reasonable?
As long as I am satisfied that the risks have been identified/addressed,
the report meets it's intended technical purpose. However, there are
issues of copyright and licencing. Does the new client have permission
to use/rely on this report? Should I check this? Or is this a legal
matter between the consultants/applicant regarding liability/payment?
If I should be checking this, who should I inform? Or should I simply
refuse to accept the report without a letter confirming that the client
can use the report?
If I should be checking this, then should I also be checking the
PI/public liability insurance of the consultants to ensure that they are
covered for this sort of work?
If a consultant goes out of business, should I refuse to review any of
their reports in future as they will not have PI cover? Should I check
that they are solvent before accepting the report?
Most consultant's reports I receive which include third party reports,
do state that they are not placing any reliance on the third party data.
I believe that it is reasonable to use this data, and any competent
consultant would be remis NOT to review it as it is relevant.
With regards to OS/Crown copyright, I also understood that the WIMBY/BGS
data etc can be used for non commercial purposes (is inclusion in a
report to demonstrate confirmation of their assessment commercial use or
reference?). It is the OS maps in the background that are covered by
Crown copyright not the data layer on top. Therefore if a consultant has
an appropriate OS licence what are they in breach of?
I know that the search companies provide good quality data in a readily
accessible form, but having worked as a consultant before commercial
searches were available and the internet was a very different place, I
used to have to go to the local library and copy/trace maps etc and
never seemed to have any probem using that information (we had the
appropriate licences).
Why shouldn't this be the case now? If a consultant wishes to take the
time to gather the data from all the different sources, I think that
this is perfectly reasonable.
Regards
Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul
Nathanail
Sent: 29 June 2011 09:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Environment Agency Data
Jonathan - the issue is not so much the data - that is the concern of
the data owner to protect their property; the issue is the
interpretation of that data. There is a danger that what is an
appropriate interpretation for one set of legal, contractual and other
circumstances is stolen (I use the words deliberately) and fraudulently
used in a different set of circumstances to the detriment of both the
client and the producer of the original interpretation.
kind regards
Paul Nathanail
Director, eMasters in Contaminated Land Management
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Churchill-Coleman
> Sent: 29 June 2011 09:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Environment Agency Data
>
> There have been some very interesting comments on this issue of
> publically available and public. In particular the insurance issue
> arising from using or relying information without proper permissions.
> I have even seen Phase 1 studies that had SCREEN DUMPS from the WIMBY
> site, I wonder how this impacts their PL Insurance??
>
> The FOIA, Environmental Information Act etc exist to allow concerned
> members of the genera public access to Environmental data. I remember
> once being told that WIMBY site often had *0,000 hits per day... I
> had never realised that we had so many concerned citizens.
>
> Jon Coleman
> www.findmaps.co.uk
************************************************************************
Note: This E-Mail is intended for the addressee only and may include
confidential information.
Unauthorised recipients are requested to please advise the sender
immediately by telephone and then delete the message without copying or
storing it or disclosing its contents to any other person.
We have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that no viruses are
transmitted from the Authority to any third party. Copyright in this
e-mail and attachments created by us unless stated to the contrary
belongs to the Council.
Any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising from any party
acting, or refraining from acting on any information contained in this e
mail is hereby excluded.
Should you communicate with anyone at the Council by e-mail, you consent
to us monitoring and reading any such correspondence.
Printing this email? Please think environmentally and only print when
essential!
************************************************************************
Forward this message to [log in to unmask] to report this email as
spam.
This email has been sent from a Halcrow Group server. If originating
from the United Kingdom it has been sent by Halcrow Group Limited, a
company incorporated in England and Wales (company number 3415971) and
having its registered office at Elms House, 43 Brook Green, Hammersmith,
London, W6 7EF. Emails originating outside the United Kingdom have been
sent by the relevant Halcrow Group company operating in the country
concerned. For details see www.halcrow.com/aboutus_companies.
The contents of this email are confidential and for the sole use of the
intended recipient at their email address. Emails to and from this
account may be monitored. Whilst reasonable care has been taken to avoid
virus transmission, no responsibility for viruses is taken and it is
your responsibility to carry out such checks as you feel appropriate.
Emails supplied are as found and there is no guarantee that the messages
contained within the body of the email have not been edited after
dispatch. If you receive this email in error, please contact the sender
immediately and delete the message from your system.
Please rate the standard of my e mail using the link below:
http://www.govmetric.com/webmetric/emailsatisfaction.aspx?organisationid=26
Harborough District Council
Council Offices
Adam and Eve Street
Market Harborough
Leicestershire
LE16 7AG
Map of Council Offices:
http://www.harborough.gov.uk/site/scripts/location.php
Website: http://www.harborough.gov.uk
Customer Services e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82
Fax: 01858 82 10 00
Text Messages: 07797 87 82 82
DX 27317 Market Harborough
Notes for E Mail Users
www.harborough.gov.uk/emailusers
www.harborough.gov.uk/ccc_form
|
