Jump to content

Pin Map Link Disappeared !!


Guest Peanuthead
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Guest Scout

geocaching.com collected the data, even if it didn't create the data. The act of collecting the data into a database is a value-added activity that can and should be protected.

 

Each individual geocacher still owns his own cache. He is free to distribute information about it in any way he sees fit.

 

But individuals are not free to obtain information about other caches from geocaching.com and use those outside the permissions granted by the Web site. If you want to do that, start collecting your own data.

 

I, for one, as a submitter of information to geocaching.com, am glad that the site protects my data from unauthorized reuse.

 

jeremy is willing to allow some such reuse under certain conditions. One is that the data be identified as coming from and copyrighted by geocaching.com. Without this, a commercial party that would be prevented from using the data from geocaching.com would just go to, say, Buxley's maps and suck down all the data from there, bypassing geocaching.com's protections. In other words, jeremy can't protect the data without requiring the same notice to accompany the data wherever it goes.

 

Requiring all reuse of geocaching.com data to carry the Grounded copyright is just plain good sense. I haven't heard any reason given for anyone refusing jeremy's reasonable requirement.

Link to comment
Guest jeremy

Keep in mind I'm no lawyer, so getting in some sort of discourse on the legalities is a bit beyond me. You'll have to ask a lawyer about it. However, I'll give it a go.

 

Wow. Topozone is actually a good example. I can link to topozone but I can't take their maps and put them on my web site. Same with Mapblast - In fact a requirement for Mapblast is that I put that icon on my site that links to them, just for the ability to link to them. That's probably an extreme case.

 

And Florian, yes - I believe providing a graphic of caches for display on your web site is technically a violation of the copyright since you display it on your own web site. It would be considered a derivitive from the information collected on the web site. Would I ask you to remove it? If you asked me to put it on your web site I wouldn't have a problem with it. Just like I had no problems with Ed Hall and his maps until he decided not to respect my requests.

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Guest Florian

Originally posted by jeremy:

>Wow. Topozone is actually a good example. I can link to topozone but I can't take their maps and put them on my web site.

 

But what if i used Topozone to derive a listing of coordinates? I could certainly do that and i don't think Topozone.com has any rights to such a list of coordinates derived from clicking on their maps. No one is reproducing Geocaching.com web pages. (Well, maybe someone is someplace, but that's not what we're talking about here.) I just don't see that Geocaching.com owns the coordinates anymore than Topozone.com owns coordinates derived from their site.

 

-Florian

 

 

------------------

http://www.stargazer.org/geocaching/

Link to comment
Guest Florian

Originally posted by jeremy:

>I enjoy a good argument, especially when everyone is civil.

 

Me too! ;-)

 

>Without a copyright on the info I couldn't have had that person remove the cache.

 

With all respect, and meaning this nicely, i don't think you had any _right_ at all to have someone remove a cache, or a cache listing, from their own personal website. That the person may have done so was their choice and had nothing to do with any "copyright" Geocaching.com may have imagined. You may of course remove any cache from Geocaching.com that you deem inappropriate.

 

-Florian

 

------------------

http://www.stargazer.org/geocaching/

Link to comment
Guest Florian

Originally posted by Scout:

>geocaching.com collected the data, even if it didn't create the data. The act of collecting the data into a database is a value-added activity that can and should be protected.

 

Geocaching.com collected the data in that it provided a website where people could freely enter data on caches hidden. Geocaching.com did not seek out each cache in the field and record the coordinates. Yes, there is an added value. But i think that is something Geocaching.com should accept and not from such added value claim ownership or copy rights.

 

-Florian

 

 

------------------

http://www.stargazer.org/geocaching/

Link to comment
Guest Farqhuarson

quote:
Originally posted by jeremy:

Geocaching.com owns the collection of data. The data entered by individuals who place caches on the web site also own their own data.

 

So basically, you can't go to the geocaching.com web site and suck down via a program or type in the information on to another web site, publication, etc, or attempt to profit from that info. An example would be publishing a book on Geocaching that contained a list of coordinates and sell it to the public. Another way would be to take the data from the web site and create another web site with that information.

 

This not only protects the original cache owner that entered the data, but protects the game from other sites cropping up with information from the web site that may be inaccurate or just plain wrong. In addition it protects your personal data on the site from someone attempting to take and sell it to someone.

 

If you owned a cache and wanted to list it on your web site, another web site, or whatever, it's your deal. Having a copyright on the data does not mean that you no longer have rights to what you entered.

 

If you want to use the data for your own personal use, that's fine too as long as you don't redistribute the data (i.e. on another web site).

 

I don't own your physical cache, nor would I want to. It relates to "information and services" obtained from this web site.

 

Jeremy


 

i havent read through the rest of the messages but the only difference i see between florian and the buxley guy is a matter of scale. he has information not just for his own, but others that he has found. maps and locations and whatnot. so why do you not go after him as well? what is the difference? why is his ok but buxley's is not? other than the fact that he has much more data (which i still consider to be public domain, considering geocaching.com has no direct involvment in the placement of the actual caches, and especially considering there is NO notice of geocaching.com taking "ownership" of that data when submitting data, once again that can be construed as delibrately misleading. that information you had nothing to do with, did not fully inform the participants what you were doing with that data, and then claim ownership of that data. all this can definitely be construed as theft, intellecutal theft. the same as what you are complaining of buxley doing to you.)

Link to comment
Guest Iron Chef

This thread is so fast paced I can't leave my comp for more than 5 mins without something new being posted. :~) To look on the bright side, it's probably better that we get all this stuff figured out sooner than later so that it will benefit the whole community (I mean while geocaching is still in relative infantcy).

 

-Iron Chef

 

if only bandwidth and server space grew on trees like money does the world would be a better place.

 

[This message has been edited by Iron Chef (edited 28 May 2001).]

Link to comment
Guest Farqhuarson

quote:
Originally posted by jeremy:

I enjoy a good argument, especially when everyone is civil.

 


 

me too, this is something that i feel strongly about however, so if does appear that im not being civil just say so and i will tone myself down. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment
Guest Farqhuarson

quote:
Originally posted by jeremy:

I enjoy a good argument, especially when everyone is civil.

 


 

me too, this is something that i feel strongly about however, so if does appear that im not being civil just say so and i will tone myself down. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment
Guest Farqhuarson

rial" size="2">Originally posted by Florian:

Originally posted by Scout:

>geocaching.com collected the data, even if it didn't create the data. The act of collecting the data into a database is a value-added activity that can and should be protected.

 

 

Geocaching.com collected the data in that it provided a website where people could freely enter data on caches hidden. Geocaching.com did not seek out each cache in the field and record the coordinates. Yes, there is an added value. But i think that is something Geocaching.com should accept and not from such added value claim ownership or copy rights.

 

-Florian

 


 

i agree with florian on this one. it is value added, but the information is still public domain.

 

the best analogy i can come up with is like saying that i cant post baseball scores or data or history on my website without the expressed written consent of MLB. and that just isnt true. Geocaching.com can copyright the pages here, but the co-ordinate data is public domain.

 

and once again, i'm going to have to go back to the disclaimer thing, which is another point of contention. even on America's Funniest Home Video's they declare when submitting tapes that they then become property of the show, will not be returned, and will be used as they please. no such warning exists when submitting cache data. it simply seems as though you are submitting into the public domain information that is going to be freely available to the people that want it.

 

although i will also say that in the topozone example, i will agree with you, a simple link back to geocaching.com (like the link for topozone) would not have been uncalled for in this case. (now is this what buxley is refusing to do? im not a hundred percent sure on this.) if so, then he needs to rethink that position a little bit as well.

 

(if you havent been able to tell, im thinking as im typing so if this rambles i apologize icon_wink.gif )

 

[This message has been edited by Farqhuarson (edited 28 May 2001).]

Link to comment
Guest Farqhuarson

rial" size="2">Originally posted by Florian:

Originally posted by Scout:

>geocaching.com collected the data, even if it didn't create the data. The act of collecting the data into a database is a value-added activity that can and should be protected.

 

 

Geocaching.com collected the data in that it provided a website where people could freely enter data on caches hidden. Geocaching.com did not seek out each cache in the field and record the coordinates. Yes, there is an added value. But i think that is something Geocaching.com should accept and not from such added value claim ownership or copy rights.

 

-Florian

 


 

i agree with florian on this one. it is value added, but the information is still public domain.

 

the best analogy i can come up with is like saying that i cant post baseball scores or data or history on my website without the expressed written consent of MLB. and that just isnt true. Geocaching.com can copyright the pages here, but the co-ordinate data is public domain.

 

and once again, i'm going to have to go back to the disclaimer thing, which is another point of contention. even on America's Funniest Home Video's they declare when submitting tapes that they then become property of the show, will not be returned, and will be used as they please. no such warning exists when submitting cache data. it simply seems as though you are submitting into the public domain information that is going to be freely available to the people that want it.

 

although i will also say that in the topozone example, i will agree with you, a simple link back to geocaching.com (like the link for topozone) would not have been uncalled for in this case. (now is this what buxley is refusing to do? im not a hundred percent sure on this.) if so, then he needs to rethink that position a little bit as well.

 

(if you havent been able to tell, im thinking as im typing so if this rambles i apologize icon_wink.gif )

 

[This message has been edited by Farqhuarson (edited 28 May 2001).]

Link to comment
Guest Iron Chef

quote:
Originally posted by Farqhuarson:

i agree with florian on this one. it is value added, but the information is still public domain....

 

although i will also say that in the topozone example, i will agree with you, a simple link back to geocaching.com (like the link for topozone) would not have been uncalled for in this case. (now is this what buxley is refusing to do? im not a hundred percent sure on this.) if so, then he needs to rethink that position a little bit as well....


 

I would also agree with Farqhuarson on this that if Buxley wasn't linking back to Geocaching.com then this issue would be understandable, but he is (at the very top and bottom of every page relating to geocaching no less). He even thanks Mr. Irish personally on the bottom of each page. I still feel like there is something else going on here that we're missing, but oh well.

 

-Iron Chef

 

[This message has been edited by Iron Chef (edited 28 May 2001).]

Link to comment
Guest jeremy

Makes sense. I'll see if I can draft something up to make it more clear.

 

In the meantime, consider yourself informed. feel free to archive your cache if you don't agree with it. That is your discretion.

 

This is as far as I can go, since I'm no copyright lawyer, but I'd consider posting coordinates to the web site would be considered a "good faith" contract between the cache owner and the web site. Since every page on Geocaching.com has a copyright, taking that information and using it elsewhere would be a violation of that copyright if you are not me or the cache owner.

 

I don't quite follow the topozone argument. When I send a link to Topozone, topozone only lists a single coordinate, and it isn't considered a "cache," but a longitude and latitude. You as the web surfer knows that this is a cache. You're not visiting Topozone and searching for a list of caches. All I'm doing is handing you off to topozone where you can use the services of their web site.

 

As for ownership, a list of cache coordinates maintained by geocaching.com is considered a value added service. I work hard to make it the most up-to-date list of caches in the world. These are not random locations.

 

The same goes with Garmin mapsource cd's with a list of gas stations or restaurants. If you were to try and reverse engineer their software and try to put their information online, you will be violating their copyright.

 

If you have any questions about copyright law, consult a lawyer. Otherwise hopefully you now understand my position on the subject.

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Guest Florian

Originally posted by Farqhuarson:

>the best analogy i can come up with is like saying that i cant post baseball scores or data or history on my website without the expressed written consent of MLB.

 

I'll offer another example... I am an operator of an IRC chat channel. I also maintain the web page for the channel. Visitors to the channel send me pictures of themselves to post online. Some send email addresses and personal web page urls. All of which i put online if the person asks. Some of the people that send in the pictures may, or may not, like their data copied to another website. I might not like if someone copies all these pictures and data to another site either. (It's happened.) But there is no way in heck i would ever claim a copyright on these images. They were sent to me freely with the intent they be posted on a public website to be shared and made accessible to the world. That's basically how i see Geocaching.com. The only difference is one of scale. I get a hundred or so visitors a month where Geocaching.com must get hundreds a day.

 

-Florian

 

 

------------------

http://www.stargazer.org/geocaching/

Link to comment
Guest jeremy

quote:
Originally posted by Iron Chef:

Jeremy, err... don't take this the wrong way, but your maps are plotting the location of archived caches.


 

Whoops. You're right! It's not even Beta, actually.. Just something to show you guys that I'm working on maps. I've been working on an alternative server so you won't see my changes. I'm making state-specific zoomable maps so they're faster and more detailed.

 

I'll also be providing custom maps so when you're logged in you can visibly see caches that you have already found, along with new and old caches.

 

I fixed it to remove archived caches. Sorry about that.

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Guest bunkerdave

As far as the cache maps are concerned, I miss them as much as anyone, and I wish they were still available. That said, I have taken the new maps for a "test drive" and whether it is my connection, my computer, or the maps, they do not yet work as well as the old ones did. THAT said, I am impressed with what has been done in a few hours on these maps, and I can see numerous improvements that I will enjoy using when the "finished product" is made available. I have been delighted with the way everything on the site works, and I have no doubt that the new maps will be likewise.

 

As far as the "discussion" re: copyrights, etc. is concerned, it is good to have this discussion now so that all of us recognize who did/does what and what belongs to whom. I know I have been educated on the law of late.

 

Once again, I appreciate the work that goes into the site. I look forward to using the new maps. Thanks for making the sport so much easier and enjoyable.

 

Regards, BunkerDave

 

------------------

David Wallentine

Link to comment
Guest ALacy

quote:
Originally posted by jeremy:

Whoops. You're right! It's not even Beta, actually.. Just something to show you guys that I'm working on maps. ....

 

I fixed it to remove archived caches. Sorry about that.

 

Jeremy

 


Close, but if during "Identify" you click on an active cache close to an archived cache both will show. Example zoom in on Northeast Georgia. Click on the most easterly cache it will show "Lake Rabun Geocache by The Keith Folks" and an archived cache.

Link to comment
Guest rediguana

quote:
The discussion on copyrights so far ...

 

This has been an enlightening discussion to read.

 

I have been contemplating setting up a free GPS database on the web for New Zealand, in fact I started some coding last night. My intention is to create a place where people can submit co-ordinates of gas stations, banks and the like and consolidate them into one db, the contents of which can be freely used and distributed. Including downloading of the whole database for use with gps/gis software.

 

Location data is free, as much as the time, temperatures, and other recordable phenomenon are.

 

Now, in theory, if the owner of a cache in NZ submitted his cache to this db, there wouldn't be a problem. Remember that all they would be doing is submitting a coordinate, and classifying it as a cache.

 

There are possible situations and issues that I have come up with briefly whilst running this through my mind.

 

NB Please don't reply with issues about submitting locations to a free db in general with a focus on trust and validation. Please focus on the copyright issues.

 

1. What happens if someone submits a geocache for which they are not the owner of?

 

2. Is this cache entry allowed to be there? (Independent of whether they source the coordinates from geocaching.com or elsewhere)

 

3. Who's responibility is it to check for compliance? The cache owner? The database manager? Someone else?

 

4. Would the entry have to be removed after insertion into the db? After all thats just what it is - Lat/Long co-ordinates.

 

5. Are waypoint names copyrighted? If the user submits a location and suggests GC123 as a waypoint name to ensure consistency with geocaching.com, do I have to ignore that as I assume the waypoint name is value-adding by geocaching.com?

 

6. If someone goes out to a geocache, takes their own reading and submits that, is that seen as a derivative work? I can't detect this, nor differentiate it from someone sourcing it from the web.

 

I am just trying to cover issues here before I actually have to deal with them. As I said I have done a little coding, but the site is still more in the thought stage right now.

 

I enjoy geocaching, geocaching.com and gps in general. Much qdos to everyone involved! I can see issues looming that should perhaps be dealt with sooner rather than later.

 

Cheers Gavin

Link to comment
Guest Scout

eremy protect his hard work? Well, the copyright DOES apply to the geocaching Web pages, even if it doesn't apply to the coordinate data on them. One way to protect the coordinates, too, is by contract. If geocaching.com required registration and that registration included a terms of use agreement that forbids reuse of the data, Jeremy would have legal protection.

 

Finally, copyright laws differ in each country. What applies in the US may not apply in New Zealand.

 

Repeated disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Link to comment
Guest AZMark

Ever think geeks need to learn to communicate better? Social skills guys.

 

Jeremy; maybe you should look at a publisist. Someone you trust that can be the bad guy,,,and maybe state things in a bit more diplomatic matter.

 

Ed; Reposting someones personal email to the general public is way bad. I know you felt justified, but give a guy a break.

Link to comment
Guest Buxley

quote:
Originally posted by AZMark:

Ed; Reposting someones personal email to the general public is way bad. I know you felt justified, but give a guy a break.


 

*ack* You are absolutely right! My apologies to Mr. Irish, this just seemed the most effective way of bringing everyone up to date regarding the issues involved.

 

Unfortunately, the forums won't let me delete that post (I get a "Sorry, but only forum leaders are permitted to delete posts.") so if a moderator wants to remove it, please feel free.

 

Again, my apologies. Intentions were right, implementation was bad.

 

-Buxley

Link to comment
Guest rusty

I just read thru Ed's whole thread that he posted. If that's all it was, this thing is being blown way out of proportion.

 

Ed: Make the changes, Jeremy does not own the individual caches but he does own the rights to the collection of data and can bar access from his server as he pleases. After reading everything I also think he was right in making his requests.

 

Jeremy: It would not have killed you to make one more attempt to explain your request. You went from 0 to 60 in a way I thought only my wife could do :-) If he makes the changes you should apologize for coming accross like an a$$.

 

It's time to move on from this thread, it's a personal issue of two people with a working friendship and someone got their feelings hurt.

 

My unsolicited 2 cents worth,

Rusty...

Link to comment
Guest jeremy

No. That's fine. You can leave the post if you want. If not, one way to remove the post is to edit it and make the contents blank.

 

I do apologize for questioning whether Ed had found the spoon was legitimate. It did come out as a rude accusation.

 

It's all good.

 

Jeremy

Link to comment
Guest Lazyboy

The thing about speaking to each other on the internet is that we don't get inflections of the voice, facial expressions, that sort of thing, so it's easy to have misunderstandings. Is there anyway that you two can make a phone call and discuss things. I'd bet a cache or two that you'd iron it all out easily.

Link to comment
Guest Buxley

quote:
Originally posted by jeremy:

No. That's fine. You can leave the post if you want. If not, one way to remove the post is to edit it and make the contents blank.

 

I do apologize for questioning whether Ed had found the spoon was legitimate. It did come out as a rude accusation.

 

It's all good.

 

Jeremy


 

Thanks, but it was wrong of me to post those emails without your prior permission. I have edited the post down to nothing. Mea culpa.

 

Now, shall we talk about the issues and come up with some solution so that the maps can return?

 

Issue 1) The Lost Caches. I think these are a valuable part of geocaching for all the reasons listed by people above. I've got numerous 'use common sense' messages on the page and it's an "opt out" list (i.e. I've posted that if anyone wants their cache removed from the list it's taken off immediately.) Perhaps an "opt-in" list would be acceptable?

 

Issue 2) Copyright notices. I have no problem putting something that acknowleges your work at the bottom of my page. I'm reluctant however to place something on the map images themselves as those are the result of MY hard work. Again perhaps we can find some middle ground.

 

In the meantime, my page remains offline.

 

-Buxley

Link to comment
Guest Farqhuarson

work. Again perhaps we can find some middle ground.

 

-Buxley[/b]

 

well for whatever reason, scouts message has largely been ignored. but i did take some time to read through the links that he provided and came upon this paragraph actually several paragraphs, which im sure he did too....

 

http://floridalawfirm.com/article.html#copy

 

"Another basic problem in protecting a database is that copyright law does not prohibit the copying of facts, even newly discovered or expensively acquired facts, nor does it prohibit the copying of ideas. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 556, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d. 588 (1985); Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700, 703-10 (2nd Cir., 1991); Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 74 S.Ct. 460, 98 L.Ed. 630 (1954). Copyright law can only provide protection to the arrangement and coordination of facts in a database. Even then, there must be some originality to the collection and arrangement for it to be protected. See, e.g., 17 U.S.C.A. § 103 and cases cited therein.

 

Typically the preparation of a database requires a significant expenditure of time, effort and money to cull and select information from many different sources, but little or no original creativity to express the facts, or arrange them. In these circumstances, where the compiler gathers and compiles raw facts, he did not create the facts, he just discovered or uncovered them, sometimes at great expense and trouble. Such was the case in our earlier example of the poor investigator who had to call every attorney in the country to see if they practiced computer law. So how can you prevent copying of the work?

 

In order to lend copyright protection to merely factual databases, some courts have tried to move away from a strict application of the creativity test, to also employ an "industriousness" or "sweat of the brow" test to determine if the database is an "original" enough work to be afforded copyright protection. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. v. Associated Telephone Directory Publishers, 756 F.2d 801, 809 (11th Cir. 1985). These Courts, spearheaded by Judge Learned Hand, found "originality" from the "labor and expense" necessary to make the compilation, rather than from any real "creativity" of the author. Id.; Jeweler's Circular Publishing Co. v. Keystone Publishing Co., 274 F. 932 (S.D.N.Y. 1921) (L. Hand, J., the first express "industriousness" standard case), aff'd, 281 F. 83 (2d. Cir. 1922), cert. denied, 259 U.S. 581, 42 S.Ct. 464, 66 L.Ed. 1074 (1922); West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data central, Inc., 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986); Pearson, supra, at § 22.04.

 

Under the sweat of the brow doctrine, copyright could prevent the unauthorized copying of facts in a database, if the compiler could show that sufficient effort went into the acquisition and selection of the data to make it original. The protection would lie even if the information compiled was public knowledge or otherwise not protected. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel., 756 F.2d at 810.

 

Other Courts, however, continued to analyze a database dispute by using traditional concepts of creativity, and criticized the "sweat of the brow" standard. Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365, 1369 (5th Cir. 1981); Lane v. First Nat. Bank of Boston, 687 F.Supp. (D.C. Mass. 1988). In the words of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals:

 

To grant copyright protection based merely on the "sweat of the author's brow" would risk putting large areas of actual research material off limits and threaten the public's unrestrained access to information.

Financial Information, Inc. v. Moody's Investors Service, Inc., 808 F.2d 204, 207 (2d. Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 820, 108 S.Ct. 79, 98 L.Ed.2d. 42 (1987).

 

A recent unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court has followed the Miller line of cases and sounded the death knell to Learned Hand's sweat of the brow doctrine. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Services Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d. 358 (1991).

 

In Feist the compilation was manual, it was the phone book, for which the phone company had made a valid copyright registration. The alleged infringer, Feist Publications, was found to have copied large portions of the white pages from Rural Telephone Services Companies phone book. Feist Publication's repetition of four fictitious listings, or seeds, which Rural Telephone had planted in their white pages helped to prove the copying. Feist Publications included the names and addresses from Rural Telephone's white pages in its competing phone books. Rural Telephone argued that the white pages listing of names and addresses in its phone book, although admittedly facts, was still entitled to copyright protection. It contended that its efforts to obtain and select these facts should be protected, and that its competitor, Feist Publications, should be required to go to the same effort to obtain the information, and should not be allowed to benefit from its research and just copy the information. Feist Publications, 499 U.S. at. 343-44.

 

The trial court agreed with the arguments of Rural Telephone and entered a judgment for copyright infringement in favor of Rural Telephone. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc. v. Feist Publications, Inc., 663 F. Supp. 214, 218 (1987). In an unpublished opinion the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed holding:

 

The 'sweat of the brow' doctrine had numerous flaws, the most glaring being that it extended copyright protection in a compilation beyond selection and arrangement - the compiler's original contribution - to the facts themselves. . . 'Sweat of the brow' courts thereby eschewed the most fundamental axiom of copyright law - that no one may copyright facts or ideas. . .[T]hey handed out proprietary interests in facts and declared that authors are absolutely precluded from saving time and effort by relying on facts contained in prior works. "

 

one of the most important lines here would be "the most fundamental axiom of copyright law - that no one may copyright facts or ideas". which is exactly what is being attempted. so im sorry i still disagree with jeremy's "right" about claiming ownership or copyright protection of the geocache data contained here.

Link to comment
Guest Scout

hat I expect the two to work out. The rest of us can help by being careful that we don't accidentally fan the flames. So far, geocachers have done remarkably well in keeping the responses civil. :-)

 

[This message has been edited by Scout (edited 29 May 2001).]

Link to comment
Guest Farqhuarson

quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

Reluctantly, I came to the same conclusion. But that's a legal opinion from a non-lawyer. Settling this in the courts should be a last resort, not a first course of action.

 

From a practical point of view, Jeremy is still free to "punish" anyone who doesn't play by his rules -- deleting links to maps, cutting off access, etc. So, Ed Hall has incentive to comply with the request if he wants to maintain access to the data.

 

From a practical point of view, Jeremy risks alienating geocachers, losing customers of his Web site, perhaps even splintering the GSP stash hunting activity, all over shaky legal ground that would be expensive to settle definitively with lawyers and courts. So, Jeremy has incentive to find a middle ground that doesn't require Ed Hall to put Jeremy's copyright on Ed's maps.

 

Seems to me like this is a situation tailor made for compromise. Which is what I expect the two to work out. The rest of us can help by being careful that we don't accidentally fan the flames. So far, geocachers have done remarkably well in that regard. :-)

 


 

heh i defnitely concur with you scout on this one (although i wasn't reluctant icon_wink.gif ). it seemed there was a pretty happy working relationship for a while, with both the maps and geocaching.com linked back and forth.

 

so hopefully a compromise can be reached.

 

whoops, i guess i should also relate that i'm also no lawyer by any means.

 

[This message has been edited by Farqhuarson (edited 29 May 2001).]

Link to comment
Guest Farqhuarson

quote:
Originally posted by Scout:

Reluctantly, I came to the same conclusion. But that's a legal opinion from a non-lawyer. Settling this in the courts should be a last resort, not a first course of action.

 

From a practical point of view, Jeremy is still free to "punish" anyone who doesn't play by his rules -- deleting links to maps, cutting off access, etc. So, Ed Hall has incentive to comply with the request if he wants to maintain access to the data.

 

From a practical point of view, Jeremy risks alienating geocachers, losing customers of his Web site, perhaps even splintering the GSP stash hunting activity, all over shaky legal ground that would be expensive to settle definitively with lawyers and courts. So, Jeremy has incentive to find a middle ground that doesn't require Ed Hall to put Jeremy's copyright on Ed's maps.

 

Seems to me like this is a situation tailor made for compromise. Which is what I expect the two to work out. The rest of us can help by being careful that we don't accidentally fan the flames. So far, geocachers have done remarkably well in that regard. :-)

 


 

heh i defnitely concur with you scout on this one (although i wasn't reluctant icon_wink.gif ). it seemed there was a pretty happy working relationship for a while, with both the maps and geocaching.com linked back and forth.

 

so hopefully a compromise can be reached.

 

whoops, i guess i should also relate that i'm also no lawyer by any means.

 

[This message has been edited by Farqhuarson (edited 29 May 2001).]

Link to comment
Guest Tango

I'm concerned about Jeremy's asserted ownership and control of what we have submitted for posting on the geocaching.com site.

 

When we place a cache, note its coordinates. create a name for it and write descriptive (sometimes creative) copy for it, we have in essence produced a work of art... Much like a short story.

 

Perhaps I should have included a copyright statement when uploading information about our caches to geocaching,com, but I never thought that Jeremy would attempt to claim ownership of my creative product.

 

I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Link to comment
Guest Exocet

quote:
Originally posted by Florian:

>Originally posted by Exocet:

>The copyright notice for the data (not the maps/images) is reasonable and fair (IMO).

 

 

But the data is provided by the people placing the caches. It's not generated by Geocaching.com. I don't really see how Geocaching.com can claim ownership.


 

People do that all the time. It's easy to give up rights - just click on a "Submit" button and you've done it! While I don't really think that's the best way to run the world, I don't have much of a say and the lawyers and politicians do.

Link to comment
Guest Todd Svec

I guess I would like to know where it states what kind of rights I am giving up when I submit a cache to www.geocaching.com. I don't recall agreeing to anything. What would stop me from creating my own web site with cache information?

Link to comment
Guest Farqhuarson

ic domain and Buxley could do as he pleases with it.

 

and all of this still doesn't even address the fact that you CANNOT copy right latitude and longitude information. The arrangement of the information yes, but Buxley was in no way shape or form copying the format of Geocaching, he in fact was displaying the data in a completly unique manner in reference to this website. and in fact Jeremy is "copying" Buxley's arrangement of the data, which adds another little twist to the whole scenario.

 

most of the information which i've read through in the past couple of days has lead me to believe that jeremy has overstepped his bounds in a couple of areas. not just the buxley response, but in response to Florian earlier in the thread where he stated that Florian HAD to ask permission to display cache data that Florian had not just planted, but had visited as well. and that is simply false. If Florian went to a cache that is his own experience can put whatever he wants on his own personal webpage.

 

Like I said before, there is no governing body to this activity. No nationally recognized Organization or Association. Jeremy is simply like the rest of us, an enthusiast that started a webpage. One that has grown beyond all expectation probably, but still that, the same as any of the rest of us that have geoache webpages. and just like we have no authority to tell anyone else what to do with their webpage, i'm of the opinion neither does he.

Link to comment
Guest WJJagfan

Hey, why doesn't someone else start another website where I can post my cache as well. I wouldn't mind posting my cache to three or four different sites. What happens to this 'sport' if one day Mr. Irish decides to bag it or if some other unforeseen problem arises with 'geocaching.com'?

 

If I had the technical know-how, I would certainly consider it. I don't think multiple sites would be bad for GeoCaching. The idea of stash hunting by GPS is going to evolve so quickly beyond what it is right now that I think before too long there will be nothing to argue about.

 

Of course Jeremy Irish can do whatever he wants on his website, but businesses will pop up to take advantage of this sport and there isn't much he will be able to do about it.

 

Hey have fun while it is free! I'll bet next year Nike will have a signature GeoCaching boot that we will able be anxious to buy. Right?! Long live 'free' enterprise!

 

BTW: I don't want to sound ungrateful. Thanks to Mr. Irish this idea has exploded. I hope he can find a way to make a ton of money off it. Good luck.

 

[This message has been edited by WJJagfan (edited 30 May 2001).]

Link to comment
Guest c.mathis

Just a thought...

 

You spend a great deal of time and money to create a Classified Ad web site.

 

After it becomes very popular, someone puts up another web site and doesn't offer original data, but rather takes all the ads from your site and simply reproduces them in another form.

 

Copywrite violation? Perhaps not, but how would you feel?

Link to comment
Guest Sun _Tzu

quote:
Originally posted by WJJagfan:

Hey, why doesn't someone else start another website where I can post my cache as well. I wouldn't mind posting my cache to three or four different sites. What happens to this 'sport' if one day Mr. Irish decides to bag it or if some other unforeseen problem arises with 'geocaching.com'?

 

If I had the technical know-how, I would certainly consider it. If indeed the game is important to Mr. Irish, I would think he would be in favor of such a proposition.


Plenty of people have the technical know-how, but it takes more than technical know-how. You need space and bandwidth, and that costs. That is the biggest reason for J.I.'s hard position on the copyright stuff. There is some real capital tied up in the geocaching.com presence, and I'm guessing he would like to get to a point where the investement will generate some revenue. I'm sure that if a majority of the users had serious complaints about his treatment of the situation, he would be more flexible. VIVA CAPITALISM!!!

Link to comment
Guest Sun _Tzu

quote:
Originally posted by c.mathis:

Just a thought...

 

You spend a great deal of time and money to create a Classified Ad web site.

 

After it becomes very popular, someone puts up another web site and doesn't offer original data, but rather takes all the ads from your site and simply reproduces them in another form.

 

Copywrite violation? Perhaps not, but how would you feel?


 

I would love that!!!! Because the number of people seeing the ads would increase! The money (if there was any) for placing an ad would still go to me, and more of the advertizers would sell their goods. I'd get a great reputation, and more advertizers!

Link to comment
Guest Iron Chef

who knows what the future holds for us. The sport may encounter a fork in the road somewhere and end up like like the open source software projects availiable on Sourceforge (lots of the same stuff going on, but different interesting approaches to each one).

 

So, let's just calm down a bit and not mention that big nasty "C" word if at all necessary. Who knows maybe Nhouse's combat caching may catch on in a few years and we could all be playing this game in riot gear and armed to the teeth with paintball guns and sharp pointy teeth!

 

Whatever happens to geocaching, I'm sure it will be interesting.

 

------------------

-Iron Chef

_ _ _________________ _ _

agefive.com/geocache/

"But a big booming voice from the sky is exactly what you have found..."

-Contact

 

[This message has been edited by Iron Chef (edited 30 May 2001).]

Link to comment
Guest c.mathis

quote:
Originally posted by Iron Chef:

I don't think that WJJagfan was meaning that someone should make a copy of Mr. Irish's website and call it www.geocaching2.com or something. I read it as him introducing the idea of another project that is very similar to the geocaching.com website.


 

I should have been more clear. I was referring to the Buxley maps.

 

I agree that there probably will be other geocaching web sites as the sport progresses. I've considered doing one myself, but I don't think it's necessary at this stage of the sport.

Link to comment
Guest Krepism

I have decided to delete my own post! It was put together with out reasonable and productive conversation. I still hold strong that the owner of this and other sites are free to do what ever they want. If we do not like it, then we may choose not to use it. Im not sure when in history people started complaining about some thing that was free but I guess in America we can do what ever we please...

 

[This message has been edited by Krepism (edited 30 May 2001).]

Link to comment
Guest Iron Chef

quote:
Originally posted by Krepism:

One really nice thing about these forums and the "list" is that we can talk about anything. And while I think every one has been very civil about this and have been playing very nice, things are getting out of hand a bit. Jeremy has put his heart and soul into this game and if it were not for him, this game would not be where it is today. Yes maybe some one would have come along and used Netscape to create a cheesy web page and you could email him/her with the coordinates and when they got around to it, it may have got posted within a month. Nobody, Nobody here has the dedication like Jeremy to keep this site up. Other sites have begun to pop up, but if you look at them they are designed to make money right off the bat, but Jeremy has taken another route. Promote the game; make a great central point to obtain coordinates and stats. And maybe, just maybe he might make a few dollars. Do I care if this information that I upload to "HIS" servers falls under his copyright, NO. Do any of you really care??? I hope not. Where did all of you hear about this game?? I will bet it was some how related to a promotion that Jeremy had to do with. Some one before chastised Jeremy for promoting this sport all over the news stations. When do any of you think the last time Jeremy got out to seek a cache? I would not think he has had a chance to get out, unless it was for a promo with a reporter. Some of you are going to say, "that?s my point, why doesn?t he allow people to help so he is not under so much pressure". He does not want it!! And I don?t blame him; I would not want it either. Do you people share the credit you receive at work with the janitors, just because they clean your cubes? Do you share the credit with the highway construction crews, hey with out that road you could not get to work? My point is, let Jeremy get all the credit he can, if that includes copyrighting the information that he collects on "HIS" website, then so be it. Jeremy has made every effort to make "his" web site legal as possible. With out central administration, the name Geocaching will start to get a bad name. For the last year we have all put our faith in Jeremy to take this sport to the next level. Any complaints??? I did not think so!!! Now stop your whining, move on and get out and go Geocaching!!


 

No reason to frown and use the angry red face guy. Remember... cheerful, happy-time discussion?

 

No one here is discounting the fact that Mr. Irish puts in a hell of a lot of time into maintaining and designing the website. And no one is contesting that he has put his own human and monetary capital into the site. I haven't heard anyone here say anything to that effect. As for sharing credit with the janitors that clean my cubical (if i had one that is), sure, I share credit with them. We pay them in exchange for goods and services rendered (credit for the job that they have done), in a capitalistic society it's only right. In fact it's a pretty dadgum good place to be a janitor. And finally... centralized administration kicks major butt.

Link to comment
Guest Buxley

s.

 

As an interesting point of fact, once upon a time (early March maybe?), when all I had were the California map and the maps for its metropolitan areas online, I did offer my software free of charge to Mr. Irish for use on his web page if he wished. He declined.

 

Regards,

 

-Ed (Buxley)

 

Ed Hall (edhall@brillig.com) http://www.brillig.com/geocaching/

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...