NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
Re: Almanac Heaven
From: Ken Gebhart
Date: 2006 Mar 30, 22:14 -0600
From: Ken Gebhart
Date: 2006 Mar 30, 22:14 -0600
On 3/30/06 6:48 PM, "Frank Reed"wrote: > Ken, you wrote: > "You are partly right about the copyright issue. Even though, as you say, no > one owns the position of Mars, the British claim copyright to whatever data > they collect." > > That's ok, but they are not responsible for collecting more than a trivial > amount of data underlying the present Nautical Almanac, and there is > long-standing precedent for relinquishing copyright to that portion of the > data that > the UK did collect. The whole content of the Nautical Almanac can be > re-generated from scratch in no time. > > And: > "They even extended this thinking recently to tidal data in > British ports. Since they collected the data, they have stopped several > tidal prediction programs from being sold without paying a royalty for the > British part." > > Yes, and that ruling also applies to international ports where the data has > been collected by British authorities. In this case, they have a point. I > certainly wish they would make it available for free, but of course, > collecting > this tidal data was expensive and it is primarily relevant to commercial > users. This is a product, and there's no strong reason to give it up for > free. > > And: > "A case over international copyright of data might go either way." > > But not ephemeris data. No way. There is no rational court in the world that > would award copyright over the positions of the stars and planets to any > authority in the UK. Indeed, the very fact that this information is presently > available, and has been available for decades, in numerous products and in > numerous online databases *without* contest by any authority claiming > copyright > guarantees that there is no legal case for copyright of the data in the > Nautical Almanac. > > And: > "However, the British also claim copyright over the page layout of the > almanac which is a creative issue. Most everyone agrees that that claim is > proper." > > It is a proper "claim", yes. Even that could be argued over since most of > the layout was published in the American Nautical Almanac *before* it was > adopted for the common Nautical Almanac. This is the sort of thing that could > go > either way in court. But we don't have to argue it in court since the > layout's > not terrificly important in any case. The specific layout of the Nautical > Almanac is hardly sacrosanct, and it would be easy to devise layouts that are > functionally equivalent or even considerably superior. There are many > navigation enthusiasts, for example, who might be happier if the daily pages > were not > cluttered with tables of twilight, sunrise/set, and moonrise/set (wouldn't > that be a nice spot for some lunar distance tables... ). Of course, for > some > navigators, even the tiniest change in the Sacred Almanac Layout adopted in > 1958 would be an abomination against the Ephemeral Gods themselves and there > might be rioting the streets! But I think not. > > -FER > 42.0N 87.7W, or 41.4N 72.1W. > www.HistoricalAtlas.com/lunars > Frank, Great comments, and some that I will earmark in case some sort of litigation looms in the future as far as the data is concerned. The layout, however, is a self perpetuating situation. All of the navigation textbooks show a sample page of the almanac, and discuss how to read it. If one had a different almanac page, such as Reeds' used to be, it would be hard to follow the textbook. Ken