GreenAmps fights OS and HMSO over use of map data
More from The Guardian: GreenAmps, a renewable energy company, has been taken to court by Ordnance Survey and Her Majesty’s Stationery Office over its use of OS data sourced from an academic licence for making applications to councils.
The core of the argument was that GreenAmps said that using OS data was imperative for making its applications – but that it is a monopoly supplier, and that that couldn’t be right.
[Nick] Brown [chief executive of GreenAmps] says that OS maps are in practice an indispensible component of planning applications for wind turbines. He admits obtaining sets of mapping data “from academic sources” and using them to develop a software tool for streamlining planning applications, initially just for his company’s use. “Early on, though, we decided that this was too important to stay in house.” He says that the government, in the shape of the Department of Trade and Industry, asked him to make the software available to “all and sundry”.
OS and HMSO argued that the data is Crown copyright and so could be sold and priced as they see fit.
In 2006, Brown says, he tried to negotiate a non commercial licence for the data. OS said that, as a commercial firm, Green Amps should pay a commercial licence fee, of £16,000. Last year, OS and HMSO, the formal holder of copyright, took action in the High Court.
Brown says the court action was out of proportion to the size of loss faced by OS; for its part, OS says it has a duty to safeguard the public purse.
OS said that it went to
“a great deal of effort to offer [Brown] a licensing situation that would work for him,” including its developer programme for start-ups. “He simply refused all suggestions.”
But as the article points out, while we can’t condone the theft of (intellectual) property, the case shows an interesting policy issue:
This is the question of whether the practice of managing government information through trading funds like Ordnance Survey is compatible with European regulations requiring essential public information to be made freely available.
Brown says he will base his appeal on the claim that maps are an essential component of planning applications, a quasi judicial process. Last month, he published a survey of planning officers concluding that, while in theory maps could come from anywhere, in practice local authorities look askance at applications not supported with OS data. “It appears that no viable alternative to OS exists on the market.”
On that basis, he says, charges for the use of such essential data are a breach of human rights, as well as against the spirit of the EU Inspire directive, passed last year to enable the free exchange of data for the purposes of environmental protection. We await the appeal with interest.
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- Mark the date: July 17 at the RSA, London, for the Free Our Data debate (22 June 2006; score: 23.24%)
- Data pricing: more fuel for the fire (6 April 2006; score: 18.24%)
- Welcome to the Free Our Data campaign blog (13 March 2006; score: 0%)
- About the Free Our Data blog (13 March 2006; score: 0%)
- Terrible design? Yes, sorry (15 March 2006; score: 0%)
January 23rd, 2008 at 8:07 pm
“a great deal of effort to offer [Brown] a licensing situation that would work for him,�
Wait a minute. What has happened to OPSI’s Information Fair Trader Scheme which is explicit in stating that all users of Crown Copyrighted information are treated equally and the same. Is IFTS dead? And wouldn’t it be useful for all of the OS customers to consortially, to file a class action suit?
Roy
January 24th, 2008 at 9:38 am
“On that basis, he says, charges for the use of such essential data are … against the spirit of the EU Inspire directive, passed last year to enable the free exchange of data for the purposes of environmental protection.”
Not true. Article 17.3 of the INSPIRE Directive states:
“Member States may allow public authorities that supply spatial data sets and services to license them to, and/or require payment from, the public authorities or institutions and bodies of the Community that use these spatial data sets and services.”
Making data freely available is not the same as making data available free of charge.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:46 am
Have a look at the Court judgment at http://www2.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2007/2755.html and you will see that there is quite a difference between what might appear as a moral wrong and the legal situation. The arguments raised by Mr Brown and his behaviour that brough the case to Court make interesting reading and show that this whole area is much more complex than most people realise.
February 7th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
The judgement of 5th November 2007 only addressed part of the dispute and Green Amps has appealed for a long list of reasons which – being sub judice – I couldn’t comment on in more detail. Suffice to say that the matter is important enough that we were not going to “leave it at that�.
Meanwhile (and to round the circle) we served requisitions on OS for key items of information using the PSI Regulations and FOI. As of yesterday OS has quite elegantly side-stepped these requisitions.
The Select Committee overseeing CLG wrote in its report HC268
(link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmcomloc/268/268.pdf)
a range of what are extremely serious direct accusations on not simply OS but the bedrock beneath it. As I have said “on the record� before – this isn’t the territory for interesting academic and political debate but Judicial Review.
(continues..)
February 7th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
It is a matter of regret that the Select Committee were perhaps a little more forceful with their conclusions but then I’m an officer to a party engaged in litigation and I’m clearly biased. But I will see to it that the truth is finally extracted and a proper adjudication yielded.
The fact that the way that the public consultation was conducted was itself in serious question (for which we had attempted to make formal complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman – oh I forgot the Select Committee is beyond scrutiny) is by-the-by.
Once we found out what they were _really_ trying to find out, the matter was closed and the report written. So much for “Cabinet Office: Code of Practice on Consultation�
(link: http://bre.berr.gov.uk/regulation/documents/consultation/pdf/code.pdf)
agreed that it is for Government and not necessarily the Select Committees but this doesn’t alter the fact that it was offered by Mr Blair as “best practice�.
(continues..)