Posting copyrighted data on the wiki

Status
Not open for further replies.

ka3jjz

Wiki Admin Emeritus
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
22,071
Location
Bowie, Md.
While I appreciate the enormous amount of data posted in the wiki in the last couple of weeks, we must all be very careful about posting copyrighted information. Such information cannot be posted into the wiki without permission. I have already sustained some heat from a certain well known publication about this very topic. References to articles and links where information can be found is fine, and when copyrighted information is involved, is preferable to hard coding the data in an article.

Thanks to everyone who has posted stuff in the last couple of weeks - and to quote a certain Sargent from Hill Street Blues - 'lets be careful out there'...

73 Mike
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,275
Location
San Antonio, TX
If this was in reference to the USCG article, I went ahead and rolled back the article to the information that was posted.

Monitoring Times constantly in each issue publishes public safety profiles that are directly taken from this site and posted in their pages, and I don't believe anyone has contacted me about it. I don't mind at all that the data is reposted (it helps get it into the community and that is good) - however if a certain publication is giving us "heat "for posting information here then have them contact me regarding any "copyright" issues.

I'm going to remind everyone in the community that NO ONE owns frequency and radio communications data... period.
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,275
Location
San Antonio, TX
In supplement to my above post, some items that would be copyright issues and should be watched are:

1. Photos and images
2. scanned image of magazine page
3. a unique chart or diagram

However, raw frequency, system, and talkgroup data is NOT copyrightable and may be posted in the wiki regardless of where the source came from. That is my policy.
 

mtindor

OH/WV DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
7,488
Location
Carroll Co OH / EN90LN
blantonl said:
If this was in reference to the USCG article, I went ahead and rolled back the article to the information that was posted.

Monitoring Times constantly in each issue publishes public safety profiles that are directly taken from this site and posted in their pages, and I don't believe anyone has contacted me about it. I don't mind at all that the data is reposted (it helps get it into the community and that is good) - however if a certain publication is giving us "heat "for posting information here then have them contact me regarding any "copyright" issues.

I'm going to remind everyone in the community that NO ONE owns frequency and radio communications data... period.
I was recently surfing and come upon some other guy's website - He had noted a similar thing - He was alleging MT was snagging all kinds of info of his and not attributing it to him or anything.. so he has anti-Grove stuff pasted all over his site rofl. I dont remember the site, and the site is irrelevant. But it does attest to the fact that others allegedly have experienced the same phenomenon.

I subscribe to MT - I have often seen things in MT blatantly taken from RR and had wondered how that works... Apparently it doesn't work both ways hmm. Grove needs to back the hell off or I"ll be the first one to abandon the publication and just go read tidbits on their blogs for free instead of paying them for a publication and MT Express - Already there are a ton of places to buy radio equipment so they certainly don't hold the monopoly on that.

Mike
 
Last edited:

mtindor

OH/WV DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
7,488
Location
Carroll Co OH / EN90LN
blantonl said:
In supplement to my above post, some items that would be copyright issues and should be watched are:

1. Photos and images
2. scanned image of magazine page
3. a unique chart or diagram

However, raw frequency, system, and talkgroup data is NOT copyrightable and may be posted in the wiki regardless of where the source came from. That is my policy.
That's why we love ya.

Good job Lindsay.

Mike
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
blantonl said:
...and talkgroup data is NOT copyrightable and may be posted in the wiki regardless of where the source came from. That is my policy.
Sorry, but talkgroups are absolutely not in the public domain. Every radio shop that maintains a trunked radio system considers data about its users to be proprietary. If such information is discovered by an individual from monitoring and then published by that same individual, then the published list is covered under copyright.

It may not agree with your policy, but it is the law.
 

ChrisP

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2002
Messages
1,069
Location
Portland, OR
Speaking only for myself (since I don't know what the heat was all about), I don't mind a bit if what I put in my column shows up here. Heck, that's why I published it in the column. If I wanted to keep it a secret, I wouldn't have put it in the magazine.

If I ever refer to anything found on RadioReference.com in my column, I always link to it, or credit it directly. I would never wholesale copy and paste something from this site without credit. And I do see credit given to MT on some of the info in the Wiki, so it works both ways. Publishing a monthly magazine, or running a popular web site like Radio Reference takes a lot of time & effort and I think we all just want credit where credit is due.

However, part of the blame for the "who copied who" problem rests on the readers who submit stuff. Many times I will get frequencies and other info from listeners in the field and end up using it in a column. Two months later, when the magazine comes out, I find that the same person submitted the exact same information to Radio Reference. I don't know that when I write the column, and folks see the same things in both places and assume that one copied it out of the other - not true!

- Chris
 
Last edited:

ka3jjz

Wiki Admin Emeritus
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
22,071
Location
Bowie, Md.
Chris, I wish the rest of your editor colleagues had such an open attitude as yours. It's refreshing; quite frankly not everyone thinks that way.

Whenever something is quoted from MT, I always try to make it a point to give full acknowledgment - however not everyone is as careful.

Thanks for the note - it's appreciated 73 Mike
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
DaveNF2G said:
It may not agree with your policy, but it is the law.
What law exactly? I'm not sure I understand how talkgroups are protected under any copyright?
 

mtindor

OH/WV DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
7,488
Location
Carroll Co OH / EN90LN
DaveNF2G said:
Sorry, but talkgroups are absolutely not in the public domain. Every radio shop that maintains a trunked radio system considers data about its users to be proprietary. If such information is discovered by an individual from monitoring and then published by that same individual, then the published list is covered under copyright.

It may not agree with your policy, but it is the law.
Hmmk, so, we have a local trunked system with a decimal talkgroup ID of 1808 and a description of "Special Events". So this means that if some other sysadmin across the US decides to create a TGID of 1808 for their Special Events comms, they are in violation?

I'd like to witness that argument being defended in court.

mike
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
Everything.

Please, people, read the law and get some expert advice (not RR.com hobbyists - consult competent attorneys) before debating. Better yet, find out what the law is, follow it, and quit beating this dead horse. Title 17 of the United States Code says what it says. No amount of disagreement will change that.

While I have argued strongly that certain info is copyrighted (because the law says that it is), I say those things in order to counteract some of the misinformation that has been spewed out on the Web. My policy is about the same as those stated by other publishers - if you use stuff from my website, then please mention that fact. As Chris said, we don't publish stuff in magazines or on websites to keep it secret!
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
DaveNF2G said:
Please, people, read the law and get some expert advice (not RR.com hobbyists - consult competent attorneys) before debating. Better yet, find out what the law is, follow it, and quit beating this dead horse.
This is clearly a new horse for beating - I've been in dealing with trunked id's for 15 years and never heard it before. Could you provide a specific link?
 

hoser147

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
4,439
Location
Grand Lake St. Marys Ohio
ChrisP said:
Speaking only for myself (since I don't know what the heat was all about), I don't mind a bit if what I put in my column shows up here. Heck, that's why I published it in the column. If I wanted to keep it a secret, I wouldn't have put it in the magazine.

If I ever refer to anything found on RadioReference.com in my column, I always link to it, or credit it directly. I would never wholesale copy and paste something from this site without credit. And I do see credit given to MT on some of the info in the Wiki, so it works both ways. Publishing a monthly magazine, or running a popular web site like Radio Reference takes a lot of time & effort and I think we all just want credit where credit is due.

However, part of the blame for the "who copied who" problem rests on the readers who submit stuff. Many times I will get frequencies and other info from listeners in the field and end up using it in a column. Two months later, when the magazine comes out, I find that the same person submitted the exact same information to Radio Reference. I don't know that when I write the column, and folks see the same things in both places and assume that one copied it out of the other - not true!

- Chris
Hey Chris hope you will continue to share your Fed stuff both ways. Thanks Hoser
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,275
Location
San Antonio, TX
DaveNF2G said:
Please, people, read the law and get some expert advice (not RR.com hobbyists - consult competent attorneys) before debating. Better yet, find out what the law is, follow it, and quit beating this dead horse. Title 17 of the United States Code says what it says. No amount of disagreement will change that.
Dave,

My brother in law is a patent attorney, who, as you recommend above, is a competent attorney and an expert in the field of patent and copyright law. I have "retained" him on multiple occasions to review and assist in these types of issues.

With this in mind, I am going to repost what I did for you earlier in a different thread regarding this issue:

---
Sorry Dave, but I am going to have to categorically disagree with your assertion here.

The United States Supreme Court, in the case Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, ruled that "information" is not subject to copyright, and neither is the collection of a set of information. The creative aspects are and can be subject to copyright, however Frequency, System, and talkgroup raw data are prime examples of information and are not subject to copyright - just as phone number, address, and name are not subject to copyright and ruled in the case. End of story, period. The court case is a well documented and principal example of this type situation and definitely applies here.

What would be subject to copyright is the creative aspects of how the *information* was "presented" - i.e. HTML, tables, order, display, user comments, and other creative works.

So what this means is that if you are presenting facts on your pages, then those factual pieces of information are not subject to copyright. Your process in which you present those facts, order, decisions on whether to include or not, and creative works, are subject to copyright.

Further example... a recipe is a definition of a process, and not subject to copyright, however the words to describe it are, so republishing verbatim a recipe book is a copyright violation, rewriting the complete set of recipes in one's one words would not be. To take this to our example, if I "copied" whole pages of your site and reposted here on our site (html, your words, etc) - then we could be held liable for copyright infringement. If I took every single talkgroup, frequency, and system information set from your site and posted here in our database with my formatting and creative process... well, it's fair game.... it might not be the "nice" thing to do, but legally I would be protected.

...and this is the litmus test I have applied to the data here. I don't mind it at all if someone decides to build a web page of data from this site. By all means, go for it. I have drawn the line twice and approached folks to cease and desist... one who was downloading PDFs from the site packaging on CDROM and selling as a service on ebay, and another that mirrored the site (all HTML, code etc) on a remote server. Otherwise, and I'll make this clear, steal away on the data.... it was "user" generated content and you are free to repost wherever you want.

And Dave, really, the reality is that you DO at some point rely on FCC data (or your submitters do), and you rely on submitters that probably at times rely on other sources. The copyright argument on radio communications data is ludicrous and a lousy one. One just doesn't build a database from scratch with no involvement from FCC data and just frequency search ranges. You review public records, you talk to public safety officials who provide agency data, and then we all do some sleuthing.
 

wa8pyr

Technischer Guru
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
4,426
Location
Ohio
blantonl said:
In supplement to my above post, some items that would be copyright issues and should be watched are:

1. Photos and images
2. scanned image of magazine page
3. a unique chart or diagram

However, raw frequency, system, and talkgroup data is NOT copyrightable and may be posted in the wiki regardless of where the source came from. That is my policy.
Lindsay;

Being an author I would also add to that list, material directly quoted or paraphrased from a copyrighted publication, without *specific* written permission obtained from the copyright holder.

Tom
 

wa8pyr

Technischer Guru
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
4,426
Location
Ohio
Don_Burke said:
I would be happy to.

Can you provide some sort of cite?

I doubt I would find code specific to this, so caselaw would be helpful.
He just did in his post... Title 17 of the United States Code.

Read it.
 

blantonl

Founder and CEO
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
9,275
Location
San Antonio, TX
wa8pyr said:
Lindsay;

Being an author I would also add to that list, material directly quoted or paraphrased from a copyrighted publication, without *specific* written permission obtained from the copyright holder.

Tom
I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks Tom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top