Can You Copyright Neighborhood Boundaries?
from the insanity-in-the-map-world dept
Another day, another crazy ridiculous copyright lawsuit. A mathematician who focused on creating more accurate maps that designated actual neighborhoods, rather than just zipcode-based neighborhoods, is being sued by a company called Maponics, who claim it owns the copyright on the neighborhood boundaries the mathematician created. Seriously. The mathematician, Bernt Wahl, developed some neighborhood maps for a company a few years back, and that company sold the copyrights on those maps to Maponics. But Wahl has kept creating new maps, and gives them away free to researchers. After all, they're maps. It's basically factual information, and Wahl considers his neighborhood boundary definitions to be public domain. But Maponics is basically telling Wahl he can no longer make any more maps, and only it can sell his neighborhood maps. Yet another example where copyright is clearly being used to stifle, rather than encourage, creativity.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bernt wahl, copyright, mapping, neighborhoods
Companies: maponics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, perhaps that wasn't clear enough in the post. The maps he created are based on what the *real* neighborhoods are, rather than the mapped ones. So, for example, within a city, there may be neighborhoods like "Soma" or "Cole Valley" or whatever, that aren't official neighborhoods, without official boundaries. He went and figured out what those boundaries should be.
The *city* has official boundaries, but the neighborhoods don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you can't compete, sue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the process, stupid
If someone owns the copyright on a black box that spits out widgets, but doesn't own the copyright on widgets, doesn't the company have the legal right to prevent other people from using their black box to make widgets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the process, stupid
Copyrighted what?! Might want to look up what copyright is for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's the process, stupid
Based on the article..."a fractal-based urban-mapping technique". The article doesn't specify, so I can only assume that Maponics has copyrighted this process (in spite of the fact that the mathematician was the one who developed it). On reviewing the article again, however, the suit does appear to be specifically about the maps that were created by this process while he was working for the real estate company, not about maps he's created using the process after. However, I think the issue is still not so clear cut. Again, I'm not saying that Maponics is right, but I can at least see the difference between one type of data, like baseball scores, and another kind of data, which is the output of a copyrighted process.
Might want to look up what copyright is for.
The original intent of copyright is completely irrelevent to my point. I agree wholeheartedly that the original intent of copyright was to promote innovation and that this ideal has been corrupted over the years...however, this has no bearing on my point the legal issue of copyright is complicated by factors such as data being output by a copyrighted process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's the process, stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's the process, stupid
Right. I pointed this out below too, but I mistakenly used "copyright" when I should have used "patent".
However, Maponics threat is clearly about copyright, which can only cover a specific expression of fact as opposed to facts themselves.
Right, but...the original point I was trying to get across is that because the copyrighted material was created by a unique process (which was presumably patented), the issue is not as straightforward as it first appears. I bet the vast majority of people would say that it's downright silly to try and patent baseball scores. On the face if it, it's just a dumb idea. But if you presented the Maponics scenario to the same people, I'd bet that far more would be sympathetic to the "copyright" holder. I'd further bet that this will come into play in the arguments from the Maponics lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the process, stupid
I patent dumb reasons for suing people over illegitimate copyright issues. Money Please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the process, stupid
This is why software patents are wrong.
You shouldn't be able to copyright the results of a formula.
This is why Maponics will lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's the process, stupid
But you can patent processes. (BTW, I mistakenly referenced the copyright on the process, whereas it should have been patent.)
You shouldn't be able to copyright the results of a formula.
Well, whether you should be able to is a separate issue from whether you legally can.
This is why Maponics will lose.
I hope you're right, but I'm guessing that the Maponics lawyers will try to say that because the maps were a result of a (presumably) patented process, that they are somehow unique in their expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the process, stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the process, stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the *other* neighborhood expert here
Adding some more context to this story...Urban Mapping, www.urbanmapping.com does not stand as defendant or plaintiff to any legal proceedings. We do have Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, MapQuest, SuperPages, YellowPages and many others as clients. don't want to comment on the merits of any matters, but there you have it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the *other* neighborhood expert here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the *other* neighborhood expert here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: the *other* neighborhood expert here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the *other* neighborhood expert here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the *other* neighborhood expert here
P.S. the data should be available for free, not from a person blogging to get free SEO links to sell his product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Processes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Processes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BUSH's threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Expensive snake oil
Facts are not subject to any of the so called intellectual property rights and hopefully it stays that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
additional information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maponics Copyright product of algorithm
Ofcourse the company that hired the programmer is not happy if the 'work for hire' winds up being given away free but I have a feeling that Joe's Neighborhood Bar will let me spend my money there irrespective of what my actual neighborhood is.
Whenever a particular neighborhood develops a certain attraction to being used in real estate ads, the boundaries of that neighborhood expand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Little Guy vs. Little Guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]