Talk:Tide table
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Copyright of tide data
[edit]I'm thinking of putting in a section dealing with the copyright issues concerning the UK Hydrographic Office. You know, how they claim copyright on harmonic constituent data. Yeah, it's really funny that they try it on! Is anyone aware of any recent threats from UKHO concerning use of harmonics in tide predicting s/w or similar? Mister Flash (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Copyright issues are widespread and not special to tide data, so I would strongly doubt if it's appropriate to have a section devoted to them here. As for "trying it on", you might find it worth looking elsewhere for information to confirm that the threshold of originality for copyright is rather low, and it's possible for one who computes a set of tide data to have a copyright on the resulting work -- which doesn't stop anybody else from independently going through tide calculations and freely using the independently derived results. None of that is special to the current article topic. Terry0051 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- The situation with UKHO must be unique. They determine natural data by standard measuring techniques then claim copyright on it due to the "effort involved" in obtaining the data. I'm not talking tide tables, I'm talking raw harmonic constituents. This is a direct equivalent to the Ordnance Survey claiming copyright on mountain heights because it was such an effort to deduce them; of course they don't do so. Yes, copyright issues are widespread, but the particular case here is very unusual and may be unique. I think it certainly merits a mention. Mister Flash (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid it doesn't sound probable to me that you have got their position precisely correct. The subject of copyright is original works. You may perhaps have a personal problem over a distinction between use of a work and use of data, but that is unlikely to be relevant here. Any reference here to claims being made about rights in tide data (whether it is about a compilation of raw harmonics & phases etc, or something else) needs to be supported by reliable sources, and unless you can produce those, your personal interpretation of what they are claiming is likely to remain unverified (see WP:V) and amount to original research (see WP:OR). Terry0051 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- A personal problem? I do love it when people quote WP:OR. We have masses of that over at another area of Wikipedia in which I'm interested. Anyway, get a load of this, this and this. Also see various Wikipedia entries about the Hydrographic Office. Seems the point I'm trying to make is already mentioned elsewhere. Mister Flash (talk) 23:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not opposing your position (with which I actually sympathise) (and for that matter, I also have some sympathy with UKHO, who probably don't actually get their hands on the funding that people are supposing that they get)--just making the point that it's unlikely to be relevant here. Equally it would not be relevant on this page go into my reaction to the sites for which you provided links (thanks), and as far as I can see, the topic of trying to resolve the issue or find ways through would not seem relevant anywhere on-wiki. With good wishes, Terry0051 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I might put some background info about the issue. It's relevent to anyone developing tide calc software. I'll have a think about where to put it. Thanks. Mister Flash (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not opposing your position (with which I actually sympathise) (and for that matter, I also have some sympathy with UKHO, who probably don't actually get their hands on the funding that people are supposing that they get)--just making the point that it's unlikely to be relevant here. Equally it would not be relevant on this page go into my reaction to the sites for which you provided links (thanks), and as far as I can see, the topic of trying to resolve the issue or find ways through would not seem relevant anywhere on-wiki. With good wishes, Terry0051 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tide table. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717003838/http://www.waterlevels.gc.ca/english/Canada.shtml to http://www.waterlevels.gc.ca/english/Canada.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)