Like if two people happens to draw the same exact map, then what? Who gets to sue who? First come first serve? Literally does not make sense.
“Intellectual Property” doesn’t make sense for something like a map, like… its not a manuscript/draft of a book where its secret and hidden, the streets are literally public for anyone to draw, like wtf is a copyright for?!?
Mapping accurately is an incredibly time-intensive process.
A person or company that puts in the time and effort to accurately map an area, and sell the resulting product, deserves to get compensated for that time spent, in my opinion. And if someone comes in to take their work, copy it and sell it as their own, then that could justifiably be called copyright infringement or theft.
Just like how a painting of a church can be copyrighted (while the building is not), or how a dictionary can be copyrighted (while the words are not), a map can be copyrighted while the features that it depicts are not.
like wtf is a copyright for?!?
The copyright is for the time and effort spent to accurately map a region.
Like if two people happens to draw the same exact map, then what? Who gets to sue who? First come first serve? Literally does not make sense.
If they drew it independently, then there is no copyright infringement since there was no copying.
But it is worth noting that the odds that two people independently drawing the exact same map independently are in reality very slim. It is highly suspicious if someone starts selling what is effectively a copy of your map.
In practice such cases of copyright infringement will have to be taken to court, where the person having their copyright infringed needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their copyright was in fact infringed.
This is often difficult to do with maps.
Like if two people happens to draw the same exact map, then what? Who gets to sue who? First come first serve? Literally does not make sense.
In many cases intention matters. Two people can take the same picture and that would be fine, but if the intention was to copy someone’s work, then this is bad.
Also, in this case often the person accused of copying someone, needs to proof that they didn’t, which inverts the burden of proof. Copyright as it works right now, serves more the wealthy then the little men, as it is with so many laws under the current system.
Copyright itself needs to be reorganized fundamentally.
Also, in this case often the person accused of copying someone, needs to proof that they didn’t, which inverts the burden of proof.
I’m not sure that that claim is accurate.
To my knowledge it is not usually the case that someone who is sued for copyright infringement needs to prove their innocence before the court. Normally it is the accuser who needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the copyright infringement took place.
Could it be that you might be conflating it with YouTube and their ContentID system?
That system is not strictly a legal requirement, but rather YouTube covering their ass so they don’t get sued into oblivion for the many cases of copyright infringement that people upload to that platform on the regular
Edit: However, I do agree that the copyright system needs a pretty significant overhaul to better suit the digital age.
Under the DMCA a copyright holder can send out a take-down notice.
This is essentially the copyright holder telling you that they believe you to be in violation of their copyright. They are requesting you take down the content they believe to be infringing on their copyright, backed up by the threat of legal action.
The take-down notice is not forcing you to take down the allegedly infringing work. You have the option to send back a counter-notice, saying that you believe no copyright infringement took place. However, then the copyright holder might take you to court to determine whether this is a case of copyright infringement or not.
When the case is taken to court it is still up to the copyright holder to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is a case of copyright infringement.
(I’m not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of how the DMCA works)
I don’t get how a map can be copyrighted.
Like if two people happens to draw the same exact map, then what? Who gets to sue who? First come first serve? Literally does not make sense.
“Intellectual Property” doesn’t make sense for something like a map, like… its not a manuscript/draft of a book where its secret and hidden, the streets are literally public for anyone to draw, like wtf is a copyright for?!?
(I wanna just “pirate” all of Google’s Maps lol)
Think of it like this: what happens if two artists paint the same sunset? It’s the results of their efforts that is protected, not the inspiration.
Mapping accurately is an incredibly time-intensive process.
A person or company that puts in the time and effort to accurately map an area, and sell the resulting product, deserves to get compensated for that time spent, in my opinion. And if someone comes in to take their work, copy it and sell it as their own, then that could justifiably be called copyright infringement or theft.
Just like how a painting of a church can be copyrighted (while the building is not), or how a dictionary can be copyrighted (while the words are not), a map can be copyrighted while the features that it depicts are not.
The copyright is for the time and effort spent to accurately map a region.
If they drew it independently, then there is no copyright infringement since there was no copying.
But it is worth noting that the odds that two people independently drawing the exact same map independently are in reality very slim. It is highly suspicious if someone starts selling what is effectively a copy of your map.
In practice such cases of copyright infringement will have to be taken to court, where the person having their copyright infringed needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their copyright was in fact infringed.
This is often difficult to do with maps.
Copying maps costs AA £20m. ‘Fingerprints’ in Ordnance Survey sources used as proof
In many cases intention matters. Two people can take the same picture and that would be fine, but if the intention was to copy someone’s work, then this is bad.
Also, in this case often the person accused of copying someone, needs to proof that they didn’t, which inverts the burden of proof. Copyright as it works right now, serves more the wealthy then the little men, as it is with so many laws under the current system.
Copyright itself needs to be reorganized fundamentally.
I’m not sure that that claim is accurate.
To my knowledge it is not usually the case that someone who is sued for copyright infringement needs to prove their innocence before the court. Normally it is the accuser who needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the copyright infringement took place.
Could it be that you might be conflating it with YouTube and their ContentID system?
That system is not strictly a legal requirement, but rather YouTube covering their ass so they don’t get sued into oblivion for the many cases of copyright infringement that people upload to that platform on the regular
Edit: However, I do agree that the copyright system needs a pretty significant overhaul to better suit the digital age.
The DMCA takedowns work like that, AFAIK.
Under the DMCA a copyright holder can send out a take-down notice.
This is essentially the copyright holder telling you that they believe you to be in violation of their copyright. They are requesting you take down the content they believe to be infringing on their copyright, backed up by the threat of legal action.
The take-down notice is not forcing you to take down the allegedly infringing work. You have the option to send back a counter-notice, saying that you believe no copyright infringement took place. However, then the copyright holder might take you to court to determine whether this is a case of copyright infringement or not.
When the case is taken to court it is still up to the copyright holder to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is a case of copyright infringement.
(I’m not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of how the DMCA works)