Campsite Lists and Copyright (1 Viewer)

[Robert Clark]

Admin ...The threads that follow have been pruned from another thread. /Admin




Theft is theft - be it the Motorhome off your driveway or the database you've built up as a business over many years.

Giving credit for the source of the information you've stolen is not the same as obtaining the owners permission to take/use it.

I guess everyone lives by different moral standards, and some are happy to buy/use stuff stolen off other people.

 

[GeriatricWanderer]

But surely nobody can "own" information like that.
Any of the Aires listings, ACSI campsite listings, UK Campsite listings etc are simply just listing of places - information. I have collected details of thousands of places but I don't own that information - nobody does.
I could load them all onto a site and sell access if I chose to, as could anybody else.
Very nice if someone wanted to pay me for that info

 

[ceejayt]

But surely nobody can "own" information like that.
Any of the Aires listings, ACSI campsite listings, UK Campsite listings etc are simply just listing of places - information. I have collected details of thousands of places but I don't own that information - nobody does.
I could load them all onto a site and sell access if I chose to, as could anybody else.
Very nice if someone wanted to pay me for that info

It doesn't work like that in law. Why do you think you are offered to opt out of marketing information from sites because of you don't then you have given permission for your data to be shared - and you probably don't like it.

Britstops and FP are both valid organisations with a subscriber list. They have value in that list and the data that they have assembled and maintain. The fact you know where some of them are is of no concern. Publicising it in return for monetary value (i.e. site advertising in this case) is simply not fair. Ifd nothing else, the data owner deserves to receive some of that income and wild be entitled to do so in law.

Clearly, this will never get to that but it is a principle that is quite important particularly to small organisations who could see the value of their business severely diminished

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[ceejayt]

Absolutely agree - there's no way of telling where the guy gets his data from, it might have nothing to do with another database. Just for further example, this place has most of the same stuff available for download in whatever format you wish, but I do like a map.

http://poiplaza.com/index.php

And that is why it would never come to court because proving it would be very expensive but it doesn't alter the fact that BS and FPO have asked people not to publish locations and we should simply respect that

If you told me secret and asked me not to tell anyone and then I broadcast it to the world, how would you feel? And there is no money involved in that transaction

 

[chaser]

It doesn't work like that in law. Why do you think you are offered to opt out of marketing information from sites because of you don't then you have given permission for your data to be shared - and you probably don't like it.

Britstops and FP are both valid organisations with a subscriber list. They have value in that list and the data that they have assembled and maintain. The fact you know where some of them are is of no concern. Publicising it in return for monetary value (i.e. site advertising in this case) is simply not fair. Ifd nothing else, the data owner deserves to receive some of that income and wild be entitled to do so in law.

Clearly, this will never get to that but it is a principle that is quite important particularly to small organisations who could see the value of their business severely diminished

Britstops and fp are nothing like one another, britstops are mainly pubs where anyone who asks can stop there whether in britstops or not, fp is a collection of farms and other things that only let in people who have paid to join and not others so in actual fact sfs is doing them a favour by highlighting their availability but you have got to join first.

 

[2657]

I have no idea who produces and makes money from running Britstops or how they came by their data.

A member of this forum has a link to a website with pubs that allow overnight stays, which came first? did either use the others data? how are we to know?

Personally I do not care.

What I do know is that one gives free access to this information, asking only for a small voluntary donation, whilst the other attempts to make a living from providing information that on a forum such as this should be shared by the members of the forum.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[ceejayt]

Britstops and fp are nothing like one another, britstops are mainly pubs where anyone who asks can stop there whether in britstops or not, fp is a collection of farms and other things that only let in people who have paid to join and not others so in actual fact sfs is doing them a favour by highlighting their availability but you have got to join first.

Not necessarily the point. As I said previously, both 'clubs' have asked for the dates to remain non public and that should be respected.

No doubt some (many) pubs will let you stay over if you ask but only if you have paid to be in Britstops do you know before you arrive that you will be allowed. And that's the point.

Whilst the majority of Britstops are pubs it is clear that the different types of stop overs are increasing year on year and if they could get to a 1,000 or more wouldn't that be great and that would mean a huge amount of work to bring all that together.

If you were a member of a working mens club and had paid your subscription, even though everyone knows where it is, would you be happy if people just rocked up who hadn't paid to be a member?

 

[irnbru]

I would still like to know whether he/she has permission to use the data -

Do you think data can only be obtained from one source? If Im in England I either use a site from Keiths pub stopovers right here on Fun (and for free) or I turn up at a pub and just ask if we eat can we stay.For all I know that pub might be or might not be in the bristop book but that doesn't mean I shouldn't pass it onto Keith for his sites...Same as folk adding onto searchforsites IMO

 

[GJH]

Absolutely agree - there's no way of telling where the guy gets his data from, it might have nothing to do with another database. Just for further example, this place has most of the same stuff available for download in whatever format you wish, but I do like a map.

http://poiplaza.com/index.php

POI Plaza was one of the organisations which breached my copyright in my Motorhome Parking POI set in 2009. When I contacted them to ask them to cease the breach they responded by saying "The file uploaded by one of our visitors has been deleted. Sorry for the caused inconvenience." - i.e. they didn't bother to check whether data was in copyright before including it in their offering. I found the same was the case with other organisations, some of which were more awkward in complying.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[ceejayt]

I have no idea who produces and makes money from running Britstops or how they came by their data.

A member of this forum has a link to a website with pubs that allow overnight stays, which came first? did either use the others data? how are we to know?

Personally I do not care.

Then I think you should care because someone in the motorhome community which you clearly think is a great thing, has given up their other livelihood to create something of true value for the community you clearly hold so dear and for a very small amount you can own a well produced book with all the locations in it.

If a member on here who is not in Britstops stays at a pub and the pub lets them stay then sure, why not say so. What I am railing against is the wholesale publication of data that is someone else living.

 

[GJH]

If no one gives feedback how is searchforsites to know?

As pointed out earlier, the information isn't always corrected even when the site owner is given feedback.

Do you think data can only be obtained from one source? If Im in England I either use a site from Keiths pub stopovers right here on Fun (and for free) or I turn up at a pub and just ask if we eat can we stay.For all I know that pub might be or might not be in the bristop book but that doesn't mean I shouldn't pass it onto Keith for his sites...Same as folk adding onto searchforsites IMO

There is nothing wrong with that at all because you are obtaining and passing on source data, not copying it from elsewhere. Breach of copyright occurs when someone takes a dataset (be it in the form of an electronic file or a book or whatever) and uses that source in order to create or enhance something they are offering as if it is theirs.
The subject was covered in Link Removed back in June.

 

[ceejayt]

As pointed out earlier, teh information isn't always corrected even when the site owner is given feedback.

There is nothing wrong with that at all because you are obtaining and passing on source data, not copying it from elsewhere. Breach of copyright occurs when someone takes a dataset (be it in the form of an electronic file or a book or whatever) and uses that source in order to create or enhance something they are offering as if it is theirs.
The subject was covered in Link Removed back in June.

And again, I agree - see my earlier post - just don't agree with wholesale publishing of data where the provider has asked for it not to be shared.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[2657]

Then I think you should care because someone in the motorhome community which you clearly think is a great thing, has given up their other livelihood to create something of true value for the community you clearly hold so dear and for a very small amount you can own a well produced book with all the locations in it.

If a member on here who is not in Britstops stays at a pub and the pub lets them stay then sure, why not say so. What I am railing against is the wholesale publication of data that is someone else living.

What I am trying to highlight is that one compiles a list of over 900 pub stopovers, many of them researched by him and some added by others and makes that resource available to the motorhoming fraternity for free.

The other sees a money making opportunity, different outlook.....I know which I prefer.

 

[irnbru]

What I am railing against is the wholesale publication of data that is someone else living.

Is it really someone else living or another someone else hard work building sites up?

At the end of the day most of it is common knowledge in the motorhoming world. All searchforsites is doing is collaborating it. We are winners so whats the big deal? If you have money you want to throw away finding sites that are free then give it to charity. Geoglasgow who used to be a member on here runs an excellent FB wild camping Scotland site FREE, Keith from here runs a FREE site,
searchforsites runs a FREE site. IMO these are all collaborated from me and you Joe bloggs I just don't get it any more beyond this.

 

[ceejayt]

What I am trying to highlight is that one compiles a list of over 900 pub stopovers, many of them researched by him and some added by others and makes that resource available to the motorhoming fraternity for free.

The other sees a money making opportunity, different outlook.....I know which I prefer.

And I have no problem with you using that free resource - great, use it. That is what it is there for.

My point is the same - the publisher has asked that his/her data not be made available other than to members - doesn't stop you using any other free resource and there is no compulsion to pay anything to anybody.

Some people like to have a book and pay £25 for it, others want to use a free website - each to his own. Not all the data will be the same from both resources, it doesn't matter. (I would say that I would expect a paid for resource to be reliable and that is one of the reasons I like Britstops because the data is up to date - free data has less value and is less likely to be kept up to date).

The ONLY thing that was asked was that if it is a Britstop, please don't publish it as such. If it is a pub that let's you stay for free (and may or may not be a Britstop) then tell your friends - who cares?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Clive]

I'm probably too honest for my own good. Wouldn't dream of using a BritStops without being a member, same as FP. I just use the site to see everything that's available in my chosen area and then select whoevers app, book or website I need to go on to get the details. I used it last week in Lincoln to find the nearest place, this turned out to be a CS

 

[ceejayt]

Is it really someone else living or another someone else hard work building sites up?
.

Yes, it is someone else living.

How about you get a copy of all the Aires from Vicarious books, photocopy it and distribute it to all your friends - any difference? Again, the data is available on websites but some people like to pay for the book but they would take exception I think to you copying their book and the hard work that went into it

 

[irnbru]

I'm probably too honest for my own good. Wouldn't dream of using a BritStops without being a member, same as FP. I just use the site to see everything that's available in my chosen area and then select whoevers app, book or website I need to go on to get the details. I used it last week in Lincoln to find the nearest place, this turned out to be a CS

But who says it is britstop exclusive? I don't own a britstop book and NO DISREGARD to britstops, being scottish I would be as well flushing my money down the toilet You come across the pub off your own back , ask to stay if you buy dinner or drinks..Bonus for us Always had the attitude don't ask don't get etc.

Yes, it is someone else living.

How about you get a copy of all the Aires from Vicarious books, photocopy it and distribute it to all your friends - any difference? Again, the data is available on websites but some people like to pay for the book but they would take exception I think to you copying their book and the hard work that went into it

Tough! Cos they published the info first does it mean its theirs...Dont think so..At least not for me.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

This is a slight aside but before the Representation of the People Act 2000 it was possible for organisations to purchase hard copies of electoral registers for very little money, far less than it cost taxpayers to put the registers together in the first place. Historically that didn't matter very much because the organisations had to put in significant resources to gain value from them. With the advent of the Internet, though, several organisations spied a money making opportunity. They shipped registers to the third world where they were transcribed by people being paid peanuts and then made a lot of money from the resultant databases. The upshot was that they were making that money on the backs of the data being put together at taxpayer expense (as well as creating databases which were used for nuisance calls and junk mail) - i.e. cheating all of us.

 

[GJH]

Tough! Cos they published the info first does it mean its theirs...Dont think so..At least not for me.

Below is a copy of the post I made in June in the thread I referred to above. Hopefully that will explain the difference between obtaining the information independently and copying it from somebody else's work.

Copyright subsists in any qualifying work but it is the make-up of the work (e.g. a book) itself which copyright applies to and not the information which it contains.

When we had our family history business we used to publish scanned copies of out of copyright directories on CD. The scanned images on the CD and the code which surrounded them to present them on screen was our copyright but that was all. We could not (and did not try to) claim copyright in the original printed book. Thus, anyone copying content direct from one of our CDs (other than for personal use which was licensed) would breach copyright but there was nothing to stop anyone from buying another copy of the original book and producing their own similar CD containing their own original scans.

Thus copying (or otherwise publishing) a copy of a page in a Britstops book would be a breach of copyright but obtaining and publishing the information independently of the book would not.

 

[chaser]

Yes, it is someone else living.

How about you get a copy of all the Aires from Vicarious books, photocopy it and distribute it to all your friends - any difference? Again, the data is available on websites but some people like to pay for the book but they would take exception I think to you copying their book and the hard work that went into it

All the Aires hasn't got anything that isn't available for free so don't see how photocopieing it is any worse than lending it to someone, and once again britstops is not fp, how do you know someone hasn't just stopped at a pub and put it on sfs and then found out after it's a Britstops , britstops is just telling you where there is a pub you can stop at , just the same as sfs but britstops is charging you for the privilege.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

don't see how photocopieing it is any worse than lending it to someone

Because photocopying would be making a copy of a copyright work and depriving the copyright owner of a sale.

 

[chaser]

Because photocopying would be making a copy of a copyright work and depriving the copyright owner of a sale.

Moreso than lending it out?

 

[GJH]

Moreso than lending it out?

It would depend on the conditions of sale of the original work as to whether lending was allowed. Photocopying though is a definite breach.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[chaser]

It would depend on the conditions of sale of the original work as to whether lending was allowed. Photocopying though is a definite breach.

I am sorry I might be thick and not up with hi tec stuff but if anyone puts stuff out on the internet I think they can be pretty sure it's going to be copied one way or another, way of the world I'm afraid.

 

[irnbru]

I am sorry I might be thick and not up with hi tec stuff but if anyone puts stuff out on the internet I think they can be pretty sure it's going to be copied one way or another, way of the world I'm afraid.

Public info is Public info IMO, there to be viewed and copied by anyone. Make a £ out of it or not, at the end of the day its chancers and who wants to pay them is anyones perogative,. The choice is yours. Keith pubstopovers or searchforsites is gonna win hands down for me..Others can opt for britstops...

 

[GJH]

I am sorry I might be thick and not up with hi tec stuff but if anyone puts stuff out on the internet I think they can be pretty sure it's going to be copied one way or another, way of the world I'm afraid.

Your question which I answered was about photocopying. Why would anyone photocopy something on the Internet?
Indeed, isn't the ease of copying an electronic dataset why Britstops publishes a book rather than publishing electronically?

It may be the "way of the world" that people are prepared to rip off the work of others but that doesn't justify it does it, any more than theft of a farmers crops can be justified (for instance)? Rip off the work of others and eventually they decide it is no longer worth putting the effort in. That can well mean that the resources is lost because nobody else is prepared to put the effort in, just to be ripped off themselves, either.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[GJH]

Public info is Public info IMO, there to be viewed and copied by anyone.

Yes, of course it is. But information in a published work, just like any book for instance, is not "Public info".

 

[Jim]

Sui generis. As I understand it, people are mistaken if they think its legal to rip off a compilation/list/database of anothers work just because most of the items within that list/database are already in the public domain. If the list required a substantial investment to produce and it is within 15 years of its first publication, then copying the list leaves you wide open to being sued for damages. Lists like that, which are posted here regularly, are always deleted. Such as Wildcamping's database that was posted here last week.

 

[Gromett]

I am not a lawyer but I was under the impression that although books can be copyrighted, pure data within a book cannot? So if a book contains factual information then the information itself is not copyright, but the layout, presentation and formatting is. Things like reviews, commentary and specific notes are copyrightable but not the actual facts if I understand it correctly. For instance GPS coords, address and name are not copyrightable, but the exact layout of the page and the rest is.

A database can be copyrighted if there was significant work put into creating it. It is a bit more complicated than book copyrights. I had to look into this one time for a client of mine and it got too complex so I referred him to a solicitor.

However, I am at a loss as to the legal restrictions on taking factual information from a book and putting it in a database. I don't believe this is illegal. I am not judging on the morality of this though so don't read anything into what I have just said.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}