Legal issues in GIS
the legal context in which GIS operates
a set of constraints on practice
opportunities also
varies from country to country
US exceptional in many respects
copyright law
data, software
intellectual property rights
IPR
patents
data protection laws
privacy, confidentiality
high spatial resolution
looking into the back yard
linking data sets using geographic location
research ethics
institutional review boards
IRBs
impact on tracking, individual spatial behavior
freedom of information acts
FOIAs
legal liability
accuracy
due diligence
contracts, licensing
data and services
access to private land
Copyright
Feist case of 1991 (Supreme Court)
Feist Publications Inc vs Rural Telephone Service Co
copying of information from yellow pages
geographic data are facts
<x,z>
not the result of creative acts
traps are still facts
"sweat of the brow" not protected by copyright
US copyright law designed to foster creativity
making a map can be a creative act
artistic aspects of design
aspects of style may be protected by copyright law
ArcMap's style choices?
copyright protection is automatic
no need to register, annotate
© Michael Goodchild, 2007
fair use provision
allows copying for personal use
putting material online
published papers
images copied off the web
how about data born digital?
no humans involved
commercial satellite imagery
Google Earth
watermarking technology
plagiarism
copying without giving credit or citation
a serious academic mistake
or academic flattery?
self-plagiarism
content analysis of online publications
what about new information created by GIS?
merged data sources
processing
adding value to other sources
TIGER
Intellectual property rights
patents, inventions
software patents
US Patents 6,385,622, 6,408,307, and 6,415,291
the CIVIX patents
access to a remote database over the Internet, performance of a spatial query
give me all the hotels within 10 miles of Denver airport
e.g. Claim 6 of the '622 patent
1. System for remotely determining the position of a selected category of items of interest in a selected geographic vicinity from a database, the system comprising |
(A) a database for storing information about a plurality of items of interest, the information including, for each of the items of interest, a geographical position and at least one associated category, |
(B) a communications link for communicating between a user of the system and the database, |
(C) an information controller for transmitting a portion of the information in the database to the user via the link upon receipt of a request signal representative of a selected category and geographic vicinity, the transmitted portion of the information including identification of geographic position for at least one of the items of interest within the selected category and geographic vicinity, and |
(D) a port for remotely accessing the portion of information via the link, the port generating the request signal in response to inputs by the user which are representative of the selected category and geographic vicinity, the port having a user interface for accepting the inputs and for indicating to the user the position at least one of the items of interest in the selected category and geographic vicinity. |
Accuracy
three types of errors are important in liability:
errors in represented location
typically result from measurement and data handling mistakes
national map accuracy standards prescribe a reasonable frequency of errors in locations
court is likely to consider the process of data entry
whether a reasonable level of care was established
used in design and implementation of the system
emphasized in training
Indian Towing Co. vs United States
federal government was held to have negligently failed to maintain a lighthouse
location was marked on charts
character was described in the official Light List
Reminga vs United States
federal government was held to have inaccurately and negligently depicted the location of a broadcasting tower
on an aeronautical chart
contributing to the mistakes and fatalities in an airplane accident
representations of error-free data
Aetna Casualty and Surety Company vs Jeppeson and Company
asserted that fatal plane crash resulted from defective aeronautical chart published by Jeppeson and Company
chart by Jeppeson and Co. depicted the instrument approach procedure to an airport
information based on tabular data from the Federal Aviation Administration
parties did not dispute the accuracy of the data on the chart but rather the graphic depiction of it
the chart showed two views of the approach, one from above, one from side
two views appeared to have same scale on chart
actually scales differed by factor of 5
court found the crew were misled by representation
unintended and inappropriate uses
user lacks expertise in interpreting map
has no access to map's designers and compilers who could explain it
e.g. in Zinn vs State:
the state owns all land below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of a lake
evidence from botanists and surveyors at a regulatory hearing
established an elevation of 990 ft for the OHWM for a certain lake
the report of the hearing included a 1:24,000 USGS quadrangle showing the OHWM
thus the extent of the state's land
defined by the 990 ft contour on the map
an adjacent landowner sued the state
for the harm resulting from temporarily claiming part of her land
temporary in that the agency subsequently rescinded the report
the state was held liable
the 990 ft contour had been drawn for purposes other than definition of property rights
its use to depict the OHWM also implied a specific boundary of the property in question
i.e. the property boundary at the lake is defined by the OHWM
not a line on a map
inappropriate uses of data are likely to increase with GIS technology
unless safeguards can be built into systems