by Rodolphe Devillers, Spatial Data Infrastructure Magazine, March 19, 2012
This article summarizes the main research findings of a 4-year Canadian GEOIDE project that looked at law, data quality, public protection and ethics in relation to geospatial data. The project involved geomatics engineering professionals, geographers and lawyers, giving a multidisciplinary perspective on those questions. Relatively little work had previously been carried out in Canada on the legal framework related to geospatial data, including liability, privacy and intellectual property questions. This project, in collaboration with a number of government (e.g. Natural Resources Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Transportation Canada), industry (i.e. Groupe Trifide) and international partners (e.g. CERTU, Eurogeographics, international Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)), laid important foundations in these areas. …
For full text of the article, visit Responsible Geospatial Data Sharing: A Canadian ViewpointSDI Magazine.
by Adena Schutzberg, All Points Blog, Directions Magazine, April 8, 2012
Google Maps Floor Plan Marker for Android was announced late last week. … Those who do run the app are basically giving Google detailed information on local wi-fi/cell coverage to better locate devices (and thus people) in the venue. … [The author, Adena Schutzberg, asks an important legal question:] Who has permission to collect and share this data with Google? The owner of the property? The vendor renting it? Those who work there?…
For full text of this article, visit Google to Crowdsource Indoor Locating Data – All Points Blog.
Robert Chesal, Radio Netherlands Worldwide, February 13, 2012
Mashups and remixes could be protected by law. Much to the displeasure of the wider EU, the Dutch want to liberalize their copyright laws to explicitly allow remixes and mashups. The irony is that their inspiration is not political movements like Sweden’s Pirate Party, but America’s laws about fair use.
- Dutch Pave the Way for Looser Copyright Laws (technologyreview.com)
by James Allworth and Maxwell Wessel, Harvard Business Review, January 18, 2012
… the purpose of this article isn’t to explain what SOPA [Stop Online Piracy Act] and PIPA [Protect IP Act] will do. Instead, it’s about explaining what’s brought them about: SOPA and PIPA are prime examples of big companies trying to do everything they can to stop new competitors from innovating. …
So if “content” vs “technology” doesn’t capture what’s going on in this fight, what does? Well, SOPA makes much more sense if you look at the debate as big companies unwilling to accept change versus the innovative companies and startups that embrace change. And if we accept that startups are created to find new ways to create value for consumers, the debate is actually between the financial interests of “big content” shareholders versus consumer interests at large. …
Check out the full text of this interesting article at The Real SOPA Battle: Innovators vs. Goliath – James Allworth and Maxwell Wessel – Harvard Business Review.
NOTE: If you want to learn more about the history of copyright law and the tug-a-war between big content shareholders and new innovators, check out Jessica Littman’s book Digital Copyright or her many articles on the politics of copyright and copyright reform.
by Martha L. Arias, Internet Business Law Services
…[In Agence France Presse v. Morel – against Getty Images (US) Inc., et al., 769 F Supp. 2d 295 NY Dist. Ct. 2011,] the court held that although Twitter encourages and allows re-use of content, this does not necessarily mean that Twitter or Twitpic users may license photographs found in its pages to other users. …
For full text of the legal analysis, see Internet Images and Copyrights: Be Aware : Internet Business Law. Thank you to Kevin Pomfret for the heads-up.
Thanks to Kevin Pomfret for passing this one along.
By Darren Meale, Associate and Anthony Trenton, Partner, SNR Denton UK LLP, LexisNexis, August 31, 2011
In Beechwood House Publishing (t/a Binleys) v Guardian Products Ltd & Anor  EWPCC 22 (20 June 2011), the Patents County Court considered the issue of what amounts to a substantial extraction of data, and therefore an infringement, under the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 (the “Regulations”).
For full text of the legal analysis visit Not a Seed of Doubt: Substantial Extraction of Database.