💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › law › maps_cop.in captured on 2022-04-28 at 22:21:05.
⬅️ Previous capture (2020-10-31)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From dog.ee.lbl.gov!tennyson.lbl.gov!twcaps Mon Oct 14 16:45:22 PDT 1991 Article 25859 of alt.folklore.urban: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban Path: dog.ee.lbl.gov!tennyson.lbl.gov!twcaps >From: twcaps@tennyson.lbl.gov (Terry Chan) Subject: Cecil Adams on Copyright Traps in Maps (well, sort of) Organization: FAQ U. Message-ID: <18434@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Keywords: Master, Ilco, abracadabra X-Local-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 16:27:50 PDT Reply-To: twcaps@tennyson.lbl.gov (Terry Chan) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 91 23:27:50 GMT Summary: Traps schmaps! Sheesh! In the October 4, 1991 edition of the Easy Bay (San Francisco) _Express_, Cecil's column addresses a follow-up question on the issue of copyright traps on commercial maps. A fellow writes about a fictional town named Westdale which appeared on th 1982 edition of Rand McNally's Road Atlas map of metropolitan Chicago (1982). It was gone in the 1986 edition. Cecil contacted Rand McNally and they claimed that it was a mistake which occurred when a developer submitted a plan for such a community which was approved but never constructed. Cecil notes that it seems a little fishy since the area was unincorporated, but was built up decades ago. On the general subject of copyright traps, a Rand McNally spokesman said, "Why would we put in copyright traps and then not tell anybody they were there?" Which does seem a reasonable question. The writer refers to an book, _How to Lie with Maps_ by Mark Monmonier which indicates that these errors seem to crop up fairly frequently. In it, Monmonier also notes the two prank towns in a map of Michigan (also noted here on AFU) where a Wolverine fan put in the nonexistent towns of "Goblu" and "Beatosu" on the section showing the neighboring parts of Ohio. Does anyone have access to Cecil's September 6 column on map copyright traps? From the nature of this column, it seems to say that these traps are bunk. ObUL: Cecil has a newsfeed and is a lurker on AFU. Terry "Well, it *could* be true...ah, you know the drill" Chan -- ================================================================================ INTERNET: twchan@lbl.gov BITNET: twchan@lbl.bitnet "Reality is a concept for people who can't handle alt.folklore.urban." From dog.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!pacbell.com!mips!apple!amdahl!JUTS!tjc50 Thu Nov 21 13:31:52 PST 1991 Article 28353 of alt.folklore.urban: Path: dog.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!pacbell.com!mips!apple!amdahl!JUTS!tjc50 >From: tjc50@ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban Subject: Re: Map trap UL in LA Times Message-ID: <54SL02N904xU01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> Date: 18 Nov 91 18:25:40 GMT References: <1991Nov16.032323.8657@cco.caltech.edu> Reply-To: tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA Lines: 28 In article <1991Nov16.032323.8657@cco.caltech.edu> nyet@cco.caltech.edu (n liu) writes: >"... Thomas Bros. map guides contain some fictitious streets so that the >company can prove a copyright infringement against anyone illegally reproducing >its work. To insure that drivers are not confused, the mythical avenues are >generally shown on the outskirts of a neighborhood, run only a block, and are >indicated with broken lines (as though under construction). Thomas Bros. calls >them 'map traps.'" > - Metro Section "Only in L.A." miscelLAny > The "map trap" thingee really shouldn't be regarded as an urban legend. It's fact. There are strong reasons for such tactics, to prove copyright infringement. Infringement requires two elements: 1) Copying, and 2), Improper Appropriation. The Copying fork is usually very tough to prove without circumstantial evidence, because there's rarely a witness to the act of copying. Generally it can be shown by the combination of the allegedly infringing work's similarity (called "probative similarity") to the original work, coupled with a show of access to the original work. If the degree of probative similarity is extremely high, the access requirement can be discarded. The reproduction of errors or deliberately inserted false information is very helpful in showing a conclusively high probative similarity to assume copying. This technique has been used successfully in many copyright infringement cases. I don't have my Copyright text handy, but if anyone's interested, I'd be happy to look up a few cases and provide authoritative cites so we can lay this one to rest. -- The above is my thoughts, not my employer's; Terry Carroll 408/992-2152 The above is not legal advice; tjc50@amail.amdahl.com (preferred) All models over 18 years of age. tjc50@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com From dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!ames!decwrl!netcomsv!mojo Tue Dec 10 07:21:36 PST 1991 Article 29620 of alt.folklore.urban: Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban Path: dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!ames!decwrl!netcomsv!mojo >From: mojo@netcom.COM (Morris Jones) Subject: the FAQ - Mapmakers copyright traps Message-ID: <1991Dec10.011048.19807mojo@netcom.COM> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 01:10:48 GMT Organization: Caere Corp. Reply-To: mojo@caere.com "Fb.Mapmakers intentionally place copyright traps in maps." Unfortunately I can't speak for mapmakers in general, but .... For two years I was employed at Etak, a small company in Menlo Park that makes navigation systems for cars and trucks and such. One of their major products is high quality digital maps. As a result they employed a number of people from the mapping industry and the census bureau and such. Etak's digital maps did in fact have copyright traps. I know of one employee whose driveway was included in the map as "<employee's name> Lane," and it was done specifically as a copyright trap. This could well be a case of the self-fulfilling urban legend. Those I worked with said it was a common practice in the mapping industry. -- Morris "Mojo" Jones, Campbell, CA mojo@caere.com AA4KB @ N6LDL.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA