Hi Chris,
Again from a non-legal perspective. You had asked me earlier my views on
whether viewing WIMBY, establishing an aquifer then using that knowledge in
a commercial report without any direct reproduction of website data or maps
etc and whether this contravenes copyright law. I replied saying that it
was my understanding that this fell under the 'derivative copyright'
clause. Best example is I read a book and the story is fantastic, I then
go out and make a film based on the book. I have neither reproduced the
book, nor have I copied or plagerised the book, but I am in fact breaking
copyright laws unless I can absolutely prove that the root of my thoughts
for the film were not in anyway derived from the book.
The addition you add to this does bear consideration- I would suggest that
if you are in doubt on the second scenario you pose that it may be best to
contact the EA and get their thought on this... I would be interested to
know the answer they suggest. Again how far and complex do we wish to
stretch the argument. Bottom line is that most EA datasets require a
licence and they require payment for such. It is for each organisation to
determine how they wish to abide by this. Frankly, I would prefer to pay a
few ££'s and not have the headache.
In terms of your comment about, why should a consultant have to pay for a
dataset prepared by the gvt as part of their statutory role... hmmm.... The
OS fulfills its statutory role and everyone is aware they have to pay for
OS data, that is not in the Open Dataset...Wheres the difference??
Jon Coleman.
www.findmaps.co.uk
On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 14:24:27 +0100, Chris Dainton
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Here is a hypothetical scenario.
>
> A consultant has purchased from the BGS a solid & drift map and
geological
> memoirs for an area that includes a site that they have been
commissioned
> to undertake a piece of work that includes initial hydrogeological
> assessment to determine if the site could potentially pose an
unacceptable
> risk to controlled waters.
>
> One aspect the consultant is interested in relates to groundwater
> resources that are managed and protected by the Environment Agency
through
> their various regulatory powers and duties.
>
> Through reference to the BGS information, site/local knowledge and a
> thorough understanding of the Agency classification scheme, the
Consultant
> has established the presence of a what they believe the Agency should
have
> classified as a Superficial Secondary A Aquifer and an underlying
Principal
> Aquifer.
>
> The consultant logs onto WIYBY to confirm the Agency aquifer
> classification and only views the aquifer designation map. The
consultant
> knows they will be dealing with Agency officers who will be using this
> resource. No copies of any screen shots are made. As an aside, the
> consultant has a Ordnance Survey license that would allow, should they
> wish, the creation of pdfs of OS maps from Internet screen shots.
>
> The consultant then writes a report on many aspects of the site and
> includes a statement on the likely Aquifer Classification being:
> Superficial Secondary A Aquifer and underlying Principla Aquifer. The
> consultant references (but does not include any reproduction) the
geology
> maps & memoirs, Agency guidance and the WIYBY web portal address.
>
> Now, has the consultant potentially:
>
> 1. Browken the WIYBY terms of use, namely: "offering a product or
service
> by a commercial body, or by any other body where the charge is greater
than
> cost recovery, which does not contain Information or derived information
> but which has used that information, thereby obtaining indirect monetary
> advantage such as provision of advice based on that information, or
> charging for advertising space in a product that includes that
> information."
>
> 2. Broken EA Copyright on the viewed aquifer map material.
>
>
> One parting thought, should a consultant have to pay to know how the
> Agency has classified groundwater resources (which is a part of the
Agency
> fulfilling their regulatory role as laid out by the Government).
>
> Thoughts please.
>
> Chris Dainton
|