Public money paid for it – but the public can’t view because of crown copyright
The longer this campaign goes on, the more we seem to generate headlines like that on this post. The latest example is the project by University College London’s Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis,
(image from the CASA blog; see below for link)
In Copyright fight sinks virtual planning, Michael Cross points out how the Virtual London project can only put clips on YouTube and small examples on its blog, because it is barred from putting the whole project online – which would let any of us zoom through a virtual London, and see how the Olympics projects might look, or model flooding, or planning or any of a host of truly useful activities – by, yes, the licensing restrictions imposed by Ordnance Survey.
That’s because the model lays the OS’s Mastermap (with details of all buildings and heights in the UK) over a Google Maps system. For London, it’s very impressive – see the Casa blog.
Is this, strictly, OS’s fault? Not really – it’s the fault of a government attitude which insists that every bit of data must be sweated as an asset; OS must cut its cloth to fit that insistence.
The real obstacle is crown copyright. For data gathered with taxpayers’ help, and by organisations answerable to the government, crown copyright makes less and less sense in a world where the free movement of data enables more activity.
After all, isn’t this the same administration which abolished museum charges? What was the rationale for that? Interestingly, less than a year after doing so, museum visits were up by 62%. We suspect that if you scrapped data charging you’d see a lot more than a 62% rise in the use of data such as the OS’s. (If anyone can find the cost of the free museums initivative, we’d like to hear.)
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- Access to data denied: why isn't there a free database of UK laws? (17 August 2006; score: 57.46%)
- Crown Copyright: time for an end? (9 September 2007; score: 48.41%)
- Get rid of Crown Copyright: Times article from September 2005 (25 May 2006; score: 35.09%)
- Government seeks input on flooding review: got an opinion? (5 September 2007; score: 30.77%)
- Environment Agency yanks flood data from OnOneMap site (30 June 2007; score: 30.71%)
January 4th, 2007 at 10:00 am
I much prefer the US position on this, described in Wikipedia, that works of the US federal government and agencies are not entitled to copyright at all.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
The cost of the free museums initiative is discussed here http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAD38.htm
“Based on DCMS figures, we estimate that the additional cost of introducing free admission at museums in our sample for 2002/3 (the first full year of free admission) is in the region of £20million.”
January 4th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Charles
If I have read the CASA stuff correctly the model has been produced using commercially generated LIDAR (height) data. Was it only OS who had a difficulty with Google’s licensing model?
Steven
http://giscussions.blogspot.com
January 4th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
@Tom, thanks for that. Useful. Of course, the OS takes £50m from local government and other public bodies – so its cost of “£100m” means that it’s only really costing £50m in taxes. And it would be a lot more useful, economically, than free museum entry..
@Steven, yes, as the story says, OS couldn’t agree to Google’s request for a one-off licensing payment; it runs a pay-per-click system and is obliged to be the same for everyone.
January 5th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Charles
What I meant was the story doesn’t say whether Infoterra agreed to the one of payment bit, they also have a business model that relies on them selling their data
January 6th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I find it incredible that you have to access a German weather site to see the UK Met sattelite faxes, and that every government department has to show a profit by charging others. The Met office are actively selling weather predictions to hospitals to prepare for peaks in health problems. Joined up government this is not.
I also strongly resent the Public Records Office commercialising 19th Century Census data. As a National Repository, it discriminates against anyone living at distance from Kew. The Internet should unlock equitable delivery of national resources to citizens wherever they live in the UK. It costs money to heat and run the library, accesible free. They did develop and offer a free service for 1881, but this was withdrawn in favour of a commercial deal.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Steven, in response to your question I had no indication that there was any problem with Infoterra so I did not call the company. If anyone there has anything to add, perhaps they will post here or get in touch with me privately.