what happened to la/oc redlight file?

In general, you cannot copyright facts. You are correct. However, it is quite clear from past court cases that you CAN copyright unique collections of facts and unique presentations of those facts. You are also correct in that regard. A yellow page company cannot copyright the addresses used within their directory. They CAN copyright the entire directory in its entirety. That is the trouble on this site. These guys were taking entire collections of data and redistributing them intact and using the same exact presentation. That is clearly a violation of US copyright law.

However, be careful of where the fact stops and where the creative work starts. A text list of intersections containing cameras is a FACT. The selection of a unique point or multiple points, for that intersection against a mapping program, and the further development of geocoded coordinates to define that point, coupled with a unique description of for that entire location is no longer a FACT. That is a creative work. The FACT stopped at the name of the intersection. The copyright protected work started at the unique classification, locating and naming of that FACT.

For example, the location of waterfalls in Hawaii is a FACT. A directory that is published with a unique GPS coordinate for the location of parking at the waterfall, and a description of the waterfall, is no longer a fact.

Lastly, the commercial sites distribute their work product under licensing agreements. Copyright works aside, these files are leaked by customers. That is a violation of the licensing agreement which exposes the customer, should they ever be discovered, to significant problems.

Wait, you seem to be arguing both ends. If a commercial POI site has a listing for a red light camera in the intersection of Western and Peterson in Chicago as well as a red light camera in the intersection of Sheridan and Foster, or for N41?59.43, W087?41.38014 and N41?58.584, W087?39.29994, respectively, are you arguing those facts can be copyrighted? Is that a "creative work"?

To go back to your waterfall example, yes, the directory can be copyrighted since there is creative work (e.g. descriptions) involved. But, again, the facts therein (e.g. unique GPS coordinate for the location of parking at the waterfall) can NOT be copyrighted. There is nothing stopping me from compiling and publishing a list of just the facts (e.g.unique GPS coordinate for the location of parking at the waterfalls) in a new, different presentation -- using the copyrighted directory.

If a POI list of red light cameras from a commercial website is just a list intersections or geocoded coordinates, where is the creative work? Copyright could be invoked for any descriptions, but not to the facts. Just because someone took the time to compile the list of facts does not grant that person copyright to the list of facts. If a POI list has particular arrangement (e.g. alphabetical by intersection) with descriptions of each intersection, stripping the descriptions and rearranging the data leaves us just facts that do not enjoy copyright protection.

Again, IANAL, so please correct and cite appropriate sources accordingly.

The public fact is the descriptive list of the intersections containing the cameras. The POTENTIAL creative work is the author's selection of the way to define that intersection, along with the geocoding of those definitions. The determination of latitude and longitude may not be facts, as they are determined based on the author's creative selection of the location of the definition of the intersection in the first place.

Copyright law if clear on this. If the assembling of facts is purely a mechanical task, there is no creative uniqueness. If there is any form of editorial selection, then the uniqueness requirement is met. Once met, then the derivative works provisions kick in and that keeps others from taking the work and modifying it slightly in an attempt to bypass the copyright provisions. Copyright law won't let you do that, the copyright remains with the source of the derivative work.

This site should suffice for information:
http://www.copyright.gov/

Granted, this isn't Picasso stuff here, but nonetheless, it is what it is.

For commercial sites that simply define the intersection based on the intersection of two roads, the uniqueness requirement may not be there for there to be a creative work. It could be argued that even the geocoding is a purely mechanical task in that case. However, the site that the guys on this site stole from doesn't work that way. Those intersections are defined based on unique selection points near the intersection for specific functional reasons. There are multiple points per intersection defined, not just the intersection point. The locations of those multiple points and the naming convention used represent a unique creative work.

That is why there is commercial value in some of these databases. The commercial value is created by large, legitimate companies recognizing this copyright and having to license the data rather than just take it. If there is no copyright claim, do you think that these large companies with big city lawyers would bother licensing the data? They'd just take it and claim there was no copyright. Of course they don't do that for a reason.

Use the same waterfall example again. When the author suggests a particularly attractive parking spot and a particular location to stand to view the waterfall for photographic reasons, that is not a FACT anymore that is a creative work.

You are exactly correct that one does not gain copyright protection just because they assembled the list of facts. However, in the specific case of the data that was stolen here, the uniqueness criteria is met based on how the locations are defined. It is no longer just a mechanical task, but rather includes editorial creativity.

Once the uniquely creative work is established, you cannot take that work, rearrange it or otherwise slightly modify it and then claim that it isn't an infringement. That falls under the derivative work provisions of the copyright law.

I don't see how anyone can argue that there is any "creative work" with listing where a certain POI is. A POI is just there; its location is a simple fact. I still don't see how anyone can argue that geocoded coordinates as creative.

In fact, a "creative" listing sounds counter intuitive. A GPS listing for a POI should be exactly where it is -- not where Jim Bob thinks it is, which may or may not be where Sally Mae thinks the same POI is. Such a "creative" system sounds antithetical to the whole concept of GPS and how position is calculated.

What exactly are the commercial POI sites claiming copyright over? Did these commercial POI sites go out and calculate where intersections and POIs actually are? Did this information not exist before these commercial POI sites performed their measurements and calculations for all the POIs listed in their commercial POI lists?

Or, rather (more likely), did these POI sites plug in some values into some database which returned some geocoded coordinates (a la http://gpsvisualizer.com/geocoder/ which is an oversimplified example) -- which sounds more like a compilation than creative work?

As for licensing, it is more likely that the massive, huge databases (and not necessarily the data therein) is what is commodotized and sold/leased/rented/licensed. To go back to the phone number example, the numbers themselves are simple facts. A listing of all the numbers in the USA is still just a listing of facts and a mere compilation. Again, there is no creative work.

With regards to the waterfall example, I took your initial scenario as actual parking spots and not random, author-selected (e.g. 10 paces from the 3rd oak tree on the left) locations. Again, if a parking lot/pullover/shoulder exists at coordinate X, that is a simple fact; there is no creative work.

In this specific case, there are multiple definitions "around" the intersection for specific functional reasons. Those multiple definitions are hand selected. It isn't a mechanical process. Per my previous message, that meets the burden of the law. It is the definition of editorial control. And it is subject to copyright.

Concerning licensing, I am talking specifically about the red light databases. Why would major corporations bother negotiating contracts for the licensing of red light camera data if there weren't copyrights involved? They'd just take the data and use it. They don't. Why?

If you are right, then all you have to do is buy the European red light camera data that Garmin sells on their website, download it and then put it up for sale on a website. See how far that gets you before their lawyers come knocking.

As a newly registered member of this forum, I never saw the file(s) in question. Anything I say about the specific file(s) would be pure speculation on my part.What? Some corporation has a copyright for red light camera data? Am I infringing on their copyright when I list the intersections in Chicago that have red light cameras in my blog? What about newspapers that report about the locations of red light cameras in Chicago(land)? Are they infringing on this "copyrighted data"? Ludicrous! Again, the locations of red light cameras are common facts; walking or driving down the street, anyone can see and note their locations.
I've never argued for pirating software which is what you're describing. You yourself have stated numerous times what can and cannot be copyrighted. Once data/facts are packaged in a certain unique presentation (e.g. software), I cannot take the same, exact unique presentation and claim any copyright over them.

But, going back to phone numbers, do the Yellow Pages or Super Pages hold the copyright to the phone numbers in their databases? No. It's rather the unique presentation/packaging of that data (in their respective databases) that is copyrighted. Otherwise, we would all be paying royalties to the phone book companies every time we published/shared our phone numbers.

Again, we are free to share and publish facts that cannot enjoy copyright protection -- phone numbers and geocode coordinates alike.

Basically, one question I pose to you is: are geocode coordinates "creative" work that enjoy copyright protection? If you do believe that geocode coordinates are "creative" work that do enjoy copyright protections, who owns the copyright to 38.898748 ?, -77.037684 ? or to 34.101509 ?, -118.32691 ?? Someone should let these "copyright holders" know about Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing system (TIGER). From the wikipedia article on TIGER, "TIGER data can be used by GIS applications and is available without cost due to the requirement for U.S. Government publications to be released into the public domain.""TIGER defines geographic areas and features using topology, to represent the relationships between such features on a map. TIGER enables geocoding of street addresses. "

This is getting a little tedious. I am not sure you are listening to what is being said. The act of geocoding a factual location is not subject to copyright. A collection of geocoded coordinates of factual locations is not subject to copyright. Neither are creative works. They are mechanical processes. The editorial selection of unique locations (selected for functional reasons), the geocoding of those unique editorial selections, and the compiling of the geocoded results of those unique coordinations creates copyright protection FOR THE COLLECTION. It is then this COLLECTION that is being licensed to commercial companies who recognize the copyright protection that exists for the collection. What happened on this site is that a customer of one such commercial company, bought the data and posted it here in whole.

I agree with you one thing: tedious indeed. But you were not making the same argument back in 12-14-2007 when you posted
when someone suggested using the database at photoenforced.com as a basis for creating their list of red light camera POIs. You said in NYC Red Light Camera
when user yanz posted
Furthermore, on 12-30-2007, you posted
which, according to you, would mean that a line in a POI list for "tourist attraction,38.898748, -77.037684, White House" (your classification, locating and naming "creative" standard) would be a creative work and therefore enjoys copyright protection. However, I've been arguing throughout that such a line in a POI list are just facts that do not enjoy copyright protection that can be relisted/reused in another POI listing.



You even went as far as arguing on 12-30-2007 that
as if geocoded coordinates were creative works which do enjoy copyright protection. Again, geocoded coordinates are just facts that do NOT enjoy copyright protection.



Lastly, you argued on 12-30-2007 But that's what all the phone books/telephone directories do. They recompile facts (phone numbers, names, and, sometimes, addresses) and represent the data; it is the unique compilation (but not the data) that enjoys copyright protection as I cited in my original posting.



Whereas I've been arguing since my initial post on 12-29-2007 that But , thanks for playing.