National Academies Press: OpenBook

Licensing Geographic Data and Services (2004)

Chapter: 4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector

« Previous: 3 The Geographic Data Market: Offerings, Players, and Methods of Exchange
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

4
Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data from and to the Private Sector

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, we address three of the committee’s tasks: (1) exploring the experiences of federal, state, and local governments in licensing geographic data and services to and from the private sector; (2) examining the ways in which licensing of geographic data and services between government and the private sector serves agency missions and the interests of stakeholders in government data; and (3) identifying arguments in favor of and in opposition to various types of licensing arrangements.

Because the report focuses on the role of government, the chapter begins by describing federal, state, and local government experiences in licensing geographic data and services from the private sector. It then outlines government experiences in licensing data to private businesses and members of the public. The final two sections present stakeholder perspectives from private business and the academic community. Much of the material is drawn from oral and written testimony to the committee.1 The opinions, conclusions, and arguments documented in this chapter should not be held to be those of the committee.

1  

See Appendix B for a list of contributors.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

4.2 GOVERNMENT AGENCY EXPERIENCES IN LICENSING GEOGRAPHIC DATA AND SERVICES FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Different government agencies have different geographic data acquisition needs. These needs should be driven by the agency’s mandates, missions, goals, and operations. Mandates imposed on all agencies by state Open Records laws and the federal Freedom of Information Act and their affiliated regulations require the distribution of most government records.2 Many agencies find it within their mission to provide data to users upon request. Inevitably, license models fit some agency needs better than others. We begin by reviewing common agency missions that help determine which types of licenses are likely to be the most useful:

  • Broad Redistribution of Data. Agencies often collect data on behalf of society as a whole, or for the benefit of all within their jurisdictions.3 This mission usually requires making data publicly available at marginal cost of distribution. To the extent that they exist at all, restrictions imposed when licensing geographic data from the commercial sector must be consistent with this mission.

  • Limited Redistribution of Data. Many missions require agencies to distribute data to large groups of users. Typical numbers range from hundreds to tens of thousands of interested parties.4

2  

See Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2.

3  

For example, see the House Appropriations Committee Report 108-195 (available at <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/index.html>), which states “USGS archived data are critical to Federal, State, and local governments for protecting the homeland, natural disaster assessments, and understanding global climate change.”

4  

The U.S. Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to states, local governments, school districts, courts, and individuals who wish to participate in the redistricting process (testimony of Robert LaMacchia); the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) delivers data to state and local resource managers, state agencies, scientists, and emergency response personnel (testimony of Anne Hale Miglarese); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has “hundreds” of clients (testimony of Glenn Bethel); the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shares data with state, local, and federal agencies, and data must also be available for homeowner appeals process (testimony of Scott McAfee); Hennepin County, Minnesota, distributes data under a range of licensing arrangements to public agencies and educational institutions, and commercial companies (testimony of Randy Johnson).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
  • Internal Use. In some cases, agencies need to redistribute data to their own personnel. In cases when agencies perform their mission in cooperation with other entities, the concept of “internal use” can be stretched to include contractors, foreign governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), or state, local, or tribal governments. Agencies may use licenses to limit further use or redistribution by these parties.5

  • Distribution of Derivative Products. Some agencies use data to create derivative products. In many cases, there is no need to distribute the underlying data.6

  • Permitting Judicial Review. All agencies must disclose data to the extent required in judicial proceedings.7 Redistribution beyond the litigants is usually unnecessary and can be controlled by appropriate court orders.

4.2.1 Common Types of Licenses Used by Government

Agencies have experimented with a wide variety of licenses.8 We describe prominent examples in order of increasing complexity.9

  • Shrink-wrap and Click-wrap Licenses. Like their counterparts in the private sector, government employees often make use of

5  

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) acquires some data for use and distribution only within the military and security government sectors (testimony of Karl Tammaro); the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) occasionally procures licensed data to support “science projects and research” (written testimony of USGS, p. 3).

6  

Unlike USGS, the U.S. Census Bureau often can accomplish its mission by distributing derivative products in lieu of the underlying data with no objection to such distribution by data suppliers (testimony of Barbara Ryan).

7  

See, for example, USGS Policy 01-NMD001 (April 2001): “Even when licensed source will not be openly available, license agreements should contain terms that anticipate complications that could arise when USGS information or products are used in formulating public policy, and external parties wish to challenge USGS information products or scientific analysis through the examination of the source data.”

8  

See Appendix D for a compilation of license approaches.

9  

A related discussion in Chapter 3, Section 3.7, describes broad market strategies that companies have adopted for selling licensed data.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

mass-market products or online subscription services. Commercial products, such as geographic data packaged with software tools, are particularly useful when the agency mission does not require sharing or redistributing the specific data, and there is little need to acquire more specialized or detailed geographic data than that found in consumer products.

  • Embargoes and Quality Ladders. Government agency missions do not always require the latest or most detailed data. Agencies sometimes acquire the right to redistribute data that have been embargoed for a period of weeks or years, that have been processed to impose downgraded accuracy, or both.10

  • Minimally Restrictive Licenses. When use and redistribution restrictions are minimal, the distinction between licensing and outright purchase becomes academic. Government agencies that acquire unlimited rights to use and redistribute geographic data seldom demand exclusive rights. In such instances, the vendor retains the right to sell the data to others.

  • Tiered Users. Some vendors offer “tiered” licenses in which a range of use and redistribution rights is offered. Tiered licenses let government agencies choose the option that fits their particular needs without having to negotiate a custom agreement.11

10  

The U.S. Department of Transportation licenses Geographic Data Technologies, Inc.’s (GDT’s) Dynamap/2000 internally but posts Dynamap1000 (ca. 1998) for unrestricted distribution over the Internet (testimony of Don Cooke); the Census Bureau plans to license downgraded coordinates for use in its Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing system (TIGER) database and it will delay release of TIGER files containing licensed commercial data (written testimony from the U.S. Census Bureau); current Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) satellite data, the fruits of a partnership between Orbital Image Corp. (ORBIMAGE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are sold to a primary market of fishermen, whereas commercially obsolete two-week-old data are made available from NASA for use by researchers at no charge (see <http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEAWIFS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/getting_data.html>) (testimony of Anne Hale Miglarese).

11  

Levels of tiering within NGA’s “traditional” license model include (in order of increasing size) single organization, Department of Defense/Intelligence Community, state/local governments, and coalition forces. The tiers (12 in total) broaden to the final tier of “Unrestricted,” and then there is “Public Domain” (testimony of Karl Tammaro).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
4.2.2 Nonlicense Alternatives

Agencies regularly turn to nonlicense alternatives when (1) the geographic data needed to perform their mission are unavailable; (2) alternatives are likely to cost less than procurement under license; or (3) license restrictions conflict with their missions. Most of these alternatives ultimately rely on work done by commercial firms. At the federal level, methods for acquiring geographic data or services that can accommodate but do not require licensing include use of the General Services Administration schedule, standard competitive procurement, Brooks Act procurement procedures, sole-source procurement, and memorandums of understanding with agencies that contract with the private sector.

Federal agencies also join companies in cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs) and other partnerships for research and development, which can result in new data or technologies. Such data and technologies promote commercialization and deliver resources that neither the agency nor the private firm would likely develop on its own.12 These alternatives may come with restrictions that let commercial partners resell the data already provided to the government agency to other users.13

Finally, agencies continue to experiment with a variety of innovative procurement methods. For example, USGS uses grants to obtain new data from academic researchers. Other agencies offer prizes for the development of new technologies—an approach that could, in principle, extend to database development.14

4.2.3 Learning by Doing

Agency license negotiation skills tend to improve over time.15 Perhaps the simplest skill is to know how to bargain, since commercial vendors

12  

USGS currently has CRADAs with Microsoft (TerraServer) and National Geographic (on-demand map printing) (testimony of Barbara Ryan).

13  

NOAA negotiated a CRADA with BSB Electronic Charts to develop digital marine hydrographic maps. In retrospect, the agency has been disappointed by this arrangement, which requires NOAA and all other government and private partners to purchase Raster Nautical Charts under license from Maptech (written testimony from NOAA Coastal Services Center [CSC]).

14  

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s $1 million “grand challenge” prize for advanced autonomous robots is an example. See <http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/index.htm>.

15  

USDA’s early licenses “were terrible.” It took years to negotiate licenses that provide value for both sides (testimony of Glenn Bethel).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

frequently are willing to negotiate on price and other license terms.16 An agency’s ability to collect data in-house or through competing vendors can provide useful leverage in these negotiations.17 Finally, some agencies have learned to negotiate new types of licenses that potentially offer better value to the agency and commercial suppliers. For example, NGA designed its Clearview contract after carefully studying what the commercial sector needed and could accommodate.18 Similarly, representatives of Navteq, Inc., report being impressed by government’s willingness to protect the company’s investment through reasonable download restrictions and indemnities.19

4.2.4 Coordinated Procurement

In theory, government agencies may be able to pool their purchasing power to get improved products, lower prices, or better terms when they license geographic data from the private sector. In practice, agencies must determine (1) how many agency employees will need to use the data, (2) how they plan to use the data both currently and in the foreseeable future, and (3) whether other agencies are interested in licensing the same data. Agencies have constructed ad hoc alliances to license geographic data.20 More formal, governmentwide procurement vehicles also exist.21

16  

Space Imaging’s licenses are a “first offer” (testimony of Gene Colabatistto); Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources finds that private-sector companies are almost always flexible on terms (testimony of William Burgess).

17  

Vendors realize that the Census Bureau will not license data if it can collect the same information cheaper in-house (testimony of Don Cooke and written testimony from U.S. Census Bureau, p. 3); STI Services, Inc. dropped its demand for exclusive rights to Hawaiian hyperspectral data after NOAA indicated it might go elsewhere (testimony from NOAA CSC).

18  

NGA studied the private sector’s needs and wrote its request for proposals in consultation with industry (Roberta Lenczowski, NGA, personal communication, 2003).

19  

Testimony of Cindy Paulauskas.

20  

For example, a NOAA/FEMA/USGS/private foundation alliance to acquire digital elevation data for southern California and a NOAA/FEMA/USGS/private company partnership to license digital elevation data for Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties (written testimony from NOAA CSC).

21  

In 1986, USGS led a governmentwide effort to license SPOT Image data. More than 30 federal agencies have made purchases totaling $42 million under the agreement (written testimony from USGS, p. 5).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
4.2.5 Federal Agency Licensee Experiences

Federal agencies have experienced both benefits and drawbacks when licensing geographic data from the commercial sector.22 Some of those experiences are presented below, followed by a summary of federal agency reactions to licensing.

4.2.5.1 Benefits to Federal Agencies of Licensing Geographic Data from the Private Sector

Federal agencies related numerous circumstances in which they received benefits from licensing. These benefits include

  • Lower Data Acquisition Cost. Licensing frequently offers significant cost advantages over other methods.23

  • Immediate Availability. Data for a specific immediate government need may already exist in the commercial sector. In other instances, private companies can quickly redirect existing acquisition systems (e.g., satellites, aircraft, or field crews) to gather needed data. When data are gathered for an immediate or urgent need, they often have a very short shelf life for government purposes, so that restrictions on reuse imposed by a commercial supplier may cause few problems for the agency.24

22  

Federal agency experiences in licensing data to the commercial sector are rather limited. For a discussion of factors surrounding such situations, see Section 4.3 and Chapter 8, Section 8.4.3.

23  

USDA has obtained “attractive” discounts from SPOT, Earthsat, Earth Observation Satellite Company (EOSAT), and Space Imaging (testimony of Glenn Bethel); in written testimony (pp. 1–2), USGS describes efforts to negotiate low-priced data licenses for The National Map; obtaining county data under royalty-free licenses “enabled the end products to be cheaper and better than they would be if FEMA had insisted on outright ownership of all the datasets” (written testimony from FEMA, p. 2). In contrast, however, private-sector firms frequently set prices that “greatly exceed the cost that would be incurred if the USGS procured the data through… some other competitive procurement process” (written testimony from USGS, p. 3).

24  

Testimony of Anne Hale Miglarese.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
  • Enabling Faster Build Times. In creating a new information system,25 or making a new information system compatible with existing datasets,26 it may be easier, cheaper, and quicker to use existing commercial data. Some agencies (e.g., U.S. Census Bureau) launch projects using restricted licensed data and then migrate to the use of unrestricted data over time.27

  • Structuring the Release of Embargoed Data. Commercial data may lose substantial value within a few weeks or months. In such cases, licenses that restrict access or redistribution for short periods of time are often acceptable to government users.28

  • Supporting Specific Projects. In many cases, government can accommodate use and redistribution limitations on data used for a particular one-time project, whereas the same restrictions would be unacceptable for ongoing operations or decision making.29 USGS has occasionally accepted distribution restricttions on limited-coverage datasets used in specific one-time research projects.30 Further, restrictions that would be unacceptable for distributing project results may be acceptable if applied to the underlying data.31

  • Enhancing Derivative Products. In many cases, agencies use licensed data to update or correct existing government databases. License restrictions that limit government to extracting specific

25  

FEMA’s Map Service Center saved “several years” by using Transamerica’s restricted GeoIndex data to launch its computerized map retrieval system. FEMA plans to phase out this proprietary content over time (testimony of Scott McAfee).

26  

FEMA’s experiences in Nassau County, New York, Dekalb County, Georgia, Suffolk County, New York, and Santa Cruz County, California (testimony of Scott McAfee)

27  

Testimony of Robert LaMacchia.

28  

See, for example, SeaWiFS data discussion in footnote 10.

29  

In the case of one-time projects, reduced acquisition costs are less likely to be offset by costs incurred in coordinating and administrating intellectual property rights.

30  

Testimony of Barbara Ryan.

31  

FEMA used licensed data in creating hazards assessment maps and engineer reports (testimony of Scott McAfee).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

information for use in derivative products may be acceptable in these circumstances.32

  • Suitability for National Security Uses of Geographic Data. Commercial data are often licensed by defense agencies in order to control public access to sensitive information.

  • A Vehicle for Allocating Risk. In some cases, data acquirers and providers use licenses to allocate their risks if delivered products fail to perform. Examples include disclaiming warranties and limiting liability.33

  • A Vehicle for Proper Attribution. Data suppliers use licenses to obtain attribution for their work. Similar terms are common in nonlicense transactions and are relatively uncontroversial.

4.2.5.2 Drawbacks of Federal Agencies Licensing Geographic Data from the Private Sector

Federal agencies report that licensing also had drawbacks compared to other procurement methods. These include

  • Product Acquisition Costs. Licensing can sometimes result in higher acquisition costs than outright purchase. A single federal agency may have several thousand geographic data users who use the data for many different purposes. In today’s market, it is sometimes less expensive and more efficient for an agency to bear the full cost of collecting and maintaining a database than to acquire and administer licenses that cover all agency users.34

32  

For example, the U.S. Census Bureau’s use of CONOPS–GDT data, or its upgrade of TIGER with data from Salem County, Oregon (testimony of Robert LaMacchia).

33  

An example from a commercial firm is Intermap Technologies Inc. End-user License Agreement provided by NOAA CSC; an example from a local government is the U.S. Census Bureau’s agreement provided with Marin County, California, data (testimony of Robert LaMacchia)

34  

NOAA’s experience with Raster Nautical Charts (see footnote 13) is an example (written testimony from NOAA CSC).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
  • Administrative Costs. Agencies that license data from multiple vendors must keep track of the restrictions that apply to all of the data in their possession and take reasonable steps to ensure that users respect those restrictions. These challenges can be daunting for large systems with many suppliers and hundreds of users.35 As a result, some agencies find it easier to segregate public domain and licensed data, which makes both datasets less useful.36

  • Transaction Costs. Negotiating licenses takes time and effort, in part because the geographic data community is still learning how best to use this approach. Particularly for small transactions, the investment in negotiations may be prohibitive. In some—but not all—cases, the transaction costs associated with other procurement methods may require less time, money, and effort.37

  • Coordination Costs. Licensing works well when agencies pool their purchasing power. However, this forces agencies to incur coordination costs to determine their own present and future needs, and the needs of other agencies that might be interested in the same data. In some—but not all—cases, the coordination costs associated with other procurement methods may require less time, money, and effort.38 For example, if an agency acquires full rights in data there is little need to know about the detailed rights that other agencies desire since all the rights may be shared.

  • Friction Between Agencies. Different agencies may not license the same data, or may obtain different rights to use and redistribute

35  

USDA finds that poor metadata often make it difficult to track and enforce restrictions against users (testimony of Glenn Bethel). Lack of metadata makes it difficult to know to whom Hennepin County employees can give data. Public access terminals make enforcement difficult as well (testimony of Randy Johnson).

36  

Managing licensed data in an open environment poses significant computing challenges (testimony of Peter Weiss, NOAA-National Weather Service); USDA avoids licensing data when derived products would contain both proprietary and public layers (testimony of Glenn Bethel).

37  

Robert LaMacchia testified on the U.S. Census Bureau’s prolonged and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations with a commercial vendor; Scott McAfee testified on FEMA’s prolonged and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations with Staten Island.

38  

Ironically, local governments often band together or form regional consortia to purchase data as an alternative to licensing data from commercial vendors (testimony of Bryan Logan, EarthData, Inc.).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

the same or similar data. This incompatibility in use rights can frustrate mutual support, cooperation, and sharing among agencies.39

  • Loss of Public Domain “Raw Material” Effects. Restrictions on dissemination of data obtained by government from the commercial sector can impose large costs if these data are important inputs to research and development by businesses or the academic community.40 In such circumstances, the interests of society may be better served if agencies acquire unrestricted rights, even if this costs more than licensing.

  • Inability to Support Dissemination Needs. Agency missions and government laws commonly require widespread dissemination of government information.41 License restrictions that conflict with these requirements normally are unacceptable to agencies. To protect the proprietary interests of commercial companies from whom it has licensed data, a government agency may be required to enter into further licenses with all those to whom the agency has an obligation to disseminate the data. Such additional burdens may interfere with or greatly increase the cost of its dissemination obligations.

  • Ambiguous Use and Redistribution Rights. Agencies report that ambiguous contract language sometimes deters them from using licensed data in new and unanticipated ways.42 In theory, agency personnel can resolve such ambiguities by reading the agreement for themselves, consulting government counsel, or contacting the vendor. In practice, however, it may be difficult for agency

39  

Id. If data are owned outright by an agency, the agency is free to transfer any or all use rights to others. Presumably, friction could also occur in such a nonlicense procurement when costs are shared among agencies. However, the potential for incompatible use rights with licensed data adds an additional potential source of friction.

40  

Testimony of Peter Weiss.

41  

See Chapter 5.

42  

“It is difficult to determine what is allowed” under FEMA’s GeoIndex license with Transamerica Corporation, and “innovative uses have been delayed as a result” (written testimony from FEMA, p. 8). FEMA also experienced difficultties interpreting use restrictions for Navteq data (testimony of Scott McAfee).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

personnel to obtain a copy of the original license43 or obtain advice from agency lawyers.

  • Inability to Meet Specialized Needs. Government agencies often have specialized needs. Off-the-shelf data, which typically are offered by vendors through license arrangements, may not meet these requirements.44

4.2.5.3 Examples of Federal Agency Licensee Experiences

Almost all federal agencies acquiring geographic data have used licenses and will continue to do so. Examples include

  • FEMA. The agency frequently licenses topographic data from county governments to make floodplain maps. These royalty-free licenses have allowed the agency to make maps “cheaper and better than they would be if FEMA insisted on outright ownership of all datasets.”45 Historically, FEMA has been able to accept licenses that limit redissemination to citizen appeals. Agency plans to create digital maps where users receive access to the underlying base maps and supporting data (e.g., topographic data) may put pressure on this model.46

  • NGA. The agency purchases and/or licenses data for itself, the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and any other qualifying agency that wants to acquire geographic data through their procedures. NGA and other federal agencies also have explicit guidance to “promote stability in the U.S. commercial satellite industry.”47 Until recently, NGA acquired most images

43  

License language is seldom well documented or readily accessible in electronic form (testimony of Glenn Bethel, USDA).

44  

Testimony of Bryan Logan.

45  

Written testimony from FEMA, p. 2.

46  

Written testimony from FEMA, pp. 1–2. FEMA also licensed data from Transamerica Corp. to build a database for its Map Service Center. The data were acquired at reasonable cost and allowed the Center to open much earlier than would otherwise be possible. However, FEMA found the contract complicated to administer and ambiguous with respect to use rights. The agency is constructing a public domain database so that it can phase out the license. Id. at pp. 8–9.

47  

Testimony of Karl Tammaro. See also <http://crsp.usgs.gov>.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

through a tiered license that offered clients 12 separate choices. In 2003, NGA introduced its Clearview and Nextview licenses,48 which combine guaranteed purchase commitments with broad redistribution rights.

  • NOAA. The agency believes that nonlicense procurement is the “preferred approach” to acquiring data.49 Between 1999 and 2003, the agency negotiated licenses in four instances. In one case, the license permitted unlimited redistribution, and so, “ownership would not have added any benefit.”50 In each of the remaining cases, the agency licensed data from the commercial sector because ownership was not an option.51

  • U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau has agreed, and will continue to agree, to licensing agreements that do not restrict it ability to meet its mission.52 In its extensive dealings with state, local, and tribal governments, it encounters a broad range of licenses, from those that protect against liability or address warranty issues to those that attempt to recover costs and restrict data redistribution. The Census Bureau also has tried to license data from commercial companies working with local governments.53 In the end, it was cheaper for the Census Bureau to do the work itself.

48  

See Appendix D, Section D.3, for details on Clearview, and <http://www.nima.mil/ast/fm/acq/093003.pdf> for information on Nextview.

49  

“CSC believes that the general feeling within NOAA is that the licensing of spatial data acquired to meet mission requirements restricts NOAA’s ability to make the best use of the information for external products and for the development of the NSDI” (written testimony from NOAA, p. 3). “Although [procurement] may appear to be more costly up front, it is the preferred approach, allowing the government to utilize the data it purchased in any way it determines to be appropriate” (id. at p. 8).

50  

Written testimony from NOAA, p. 4.

51  

Id. at pp. 4–7.

52  

Written testimony from U.S. Census Bureau, p. 3.

53  

Options discussed included purchasing “downgraded” coordinates, using only the geographic information and minimal attributes (street name only) for features not already in U.S. Census Bureau’s TIGER database, and delaying the release of files with the licensed information (written testimony from U.S. Census Bureau, p. 2).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
  • USDA. The department operates a large and extensive geographic information system (GIS) program and has negotiated large-volume licenses for satellite imagery from SPOT, Earthsat, EOSAT, and Space Imaging.54 The USDA does not license aerial data55 but instead argues that it would be impractical to administer license restrictions for images that must be distributed to hundreds of clients.56

  • USGS. The agency and its partners routinely collect and publish core geographic data without restriction.57 However, The National Map program needs more data than the agency can afford to purchase. Early in 2001, USGS issued detailed guidelines specifying (1) when and under what circumstances the agency will consider licensing, (2) a detailed list of rights and exemptions that any license must grant the agency, and (3) examples of acceptable restrictions.58 USGS has since prepared draft specifications that would allow it to procure data under license for use in making derived products.59 USGS does not license aerial survey images on cost grounds; it contends that traditional fee-for-service acquisition methods are “far cheaper for a product that can be shared without restriction and integrated into public domain products at full resolution.60

4.2.5.4 Summary of Federal Agency Experiences and Reflections

When geographic data to meet a government mandate or mission do not exist, or are unavailable at a suitable price or under suitable use conditions, government agencies typically contract for new data collection.

54  

Testimony of Glenn Bethel.

55  

Written testimony from USDA, p. 2.

56  

Id. at p. 3.

57  

USGS’s core datasets include orthoimagery, elevation, hydrography, transportation, boundary, structure, land cover, and geographic data (written testimony from USGS, p. 1).

58  

National Mapping Division Policy No. 01-NMD-01 (April 3, 2001). USGS is considering a variety of possible licensing strategies, including “generalizing the data and/or not including all of the feature attributes,” embargoing data until they are “perceived to have less value to a private sector business model,” and linking The National Map to private Web sites (written testimony from USGS, p. 2).

59  

Request for Comment 03CRR002, “Purchase of Satellite Data” (2003).

60  

Written testimony from USGS, p. 3.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

Under such conditions, most federal agencies prefer acquiring full ownership rights in the data when this can be done at reasonable cost. This is based on their belief that flexibility in using such data helps support the agency’s direct mandates as well as general federal mandates for access, dissemination, and duplication and waste avoidance.61 Federal agencies typically obtain data acquisition services through commercial contracts when reasonably possible rather than gathering such data using government personnel and equipment. In achieving specific objectives, licensing sometimes can be the most effective or efficient option.

Although exceptions exist, the general framework provided by U.S. laws supports the current federal information data policy, which may be summarized as “a strong Freedom of Information Act, no government copyright, fees limited to recouping the cost of dissemination, and no restrictions on reuse.”62 Most agency personnel believe that no federal legislation or rules require them to accept restrictions on the dissemination of geographic data or accept less than full ownership rights in the data they acquire when needed to accomplish their missions. They are also under no obligation to decline such restrictions, and agencies value this flexibility to choose to license or not. Federal agency personnel generally support the current overall legal framework because they believe it gives them substantial latitude in choosing the means to acquire geographic data and services. Most agencies argue that, by whatever means, they will continue to acquire substantial amounts of geographic data from the commercial sector.63

Federal government reactions to licensing differ noticeably from agency to agency. However, there is a general consensus that the cost advantage offered by licenses must be weighed against constraints on current and possible future use and the interest in free exchange of information. Furthermore, the current coordination, negotiation, and administration costs associated with licensing are sometimes higher than

61  

See, for example, testimony from NOAA CSC, p. 3.

62  

P. N. Weiss and P. Backlund, 1997, International information policy conflict: Open and unrestricted access versus government commercialization, in Borders in Cyberspace: Information Policy and Global Infomation Infrastructure, B. Kahin and C. Nesson, eds., Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 300–321. For example, if a federal government agency acquires full ownership rights in a dataset and the dataset is accessible to the public as a matter of law, the government agency may not impose restrictions on the use of the data by the public, by license or otherwise, unless explicitly allowed to do so by law. See Chapter 5, Section 5.4.1.

63  

See, for example, written testimony from USDA, p. 8.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

those of other procurement methods. For the most part, agencies whose missions require broad dissemination find licenses less useful than agencies that have small numbers of users or need data to make derivative products. However, some agencies assert that improved licenses and licensing practices may mitigate some of these drawbacks over time.64

4.2.6 State and Local Agency Licensee Experiences

Like federal agencies, state and local agencies have experienced benefits and drawbacks in licensing geographic data from the private sector. Many of those benefits and drawbacks parallel federal agency experiences and are not repeated here. Experiences of state and local governments in licensing geographic data from the private sector include65

  • Bakersfield, California. Several local agencies have entered into a partnership with a private company to collect geographic data. The private partner can distribute the data under license as soon as they are collected. Government partners can use the data internally but cannot redistribute them for two years.66

  • Hennepin County, Minnesota. Several local governments have signed a contract with a local engineering firm to prepare new digital orthorectified quadrangle maps. The engineering firm will prepare and maintain the maps in exchange for a fee and the right to distribute street-centerline files to consumers under license. Participating governments can use the data internally.67

  • Maryland. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has negotiated licenses with SPOT, VARGIS, PIXXURES, and GDT. One of the licenses permits the department to redistribute the imagery, while all of the licenses allow the public to view the imagery or vector files on the agency’s Internet map server,

64  

Written testimony from USGS, p. 11.

65  

See NRC, 2003, Using Remote Sensing in State and Local Government: Information for Management and Decision Making, Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, for additional examples of licensing experiences (in particular, pp. 22–27, 37, 47–48).

66  

Testimony of Robert Amos.

67  

Testimony of Randy Johnson.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

which does not allow users to download the original image files.68

  • Tennessee. Tennessee state agencies discussed partnering with a private company to make statewide parcel maps in 1998. Negotiations fell through when the company refused to include rural areas in the project and declined to provide an enterprise license for state government agencies. The agencies decided that it would be cheaper to produce the maps internally. More recently, Tennessee has licensed centerline data from GDT to build E911 systems. The license strategy has saved time and ensured data compatibility with existing datasets.69

  • County and Municipal Governments and GDT. GDT has built a nationwide database by trading data with county and municipal governments across the country. These governments are usually open to novel offers, though GDT does not accept data that come with use or redistribution restrictions.70

Most of these experiences are not noticeably different from those discussed earlier for federal agencies. Although state and local governments are not large consumers of licensed data (e.g., in comparison to NGA), federal agencies are increasingly looking to them for data and are understandably concerned by any arrangements that limit redistribution and reuse. The balance of this section focuses on two primary approaches by which state and local bodies exchange or share geographic data in support of their missions: through coordination mechanisms and open access. These approaches often permit, but do not require, licensing or outright purchase from commercial data suppliers.

4.2.6.1 Coordination Mechanisms at the State and Local Level

Compared to civilian federal agencies, state and local government units (1) are more fragmented, (2) collect more domestic geographic data, and (3) have proportionately smaller data budgets.71 Conditions 1 and

68  

Testimony of William Burgess.

69  

Testimony of Mark Tuttle.

70  

Testimony of Don Cooke.

71  

Local governments spend more on geographic data than does the federal government; two-thirds of government data are state and locally owned (testimony

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

3 increase the importance of interagency cooperation. Not surprisingly, state and local governments have developed various institutional frameworks to facilitate joint acquisition and sharing of geographic data:

  • Ad H oc Collaboration. Geographic data swapping is an increasingly common form of local-to-local transaction.72 Additionally, local agencies may pool resources with federal, state, or other local agencies, or with private-sector partners to collect new data.73

  • Organized Collaboration. In principle, state and local agencies can buy and trade geographic data among themselves through “arms-length” transactions on the open market. In practice, many governments prefer to participate in regional entities where data are shared. Examples exist in Maine, Maryland, Kansas,74 and Illinois.75 Some observers claim that communal organizations are more efficient than market- and license-based mechanisms for small, tightly knit user communities.76 These organizations are less practical when disparate mandates and political structures divide potential collaborators.

  • Umbrella Organizations. State and local governments increasingly rely on networks and partnerships to facilitate sharing.77 For example, approximately 100 state, federal, nonprofit, and academic

   

of Scott Cameron, U.S. Department of Interior). There are currently 3,034 counties, 19,429 municipalities, 16,504 townships, 35,052 special districts, and 13,506 independent school districts (testimony of Costis Toregas, Public Technology Inc.).

72  

Testimony of Costis Toregas.

73  

See, for example, Applied Geographics, Inc., 2002, GIS Needs Assessment and Requirements Analysis, available at <http://gai.fgdc.gov/portal/MaineGISRequirementsReport.pdf>. This publication describes a Kansas/USDA soil mapping initiative and a Maine State Planning Office/Department of Transportation/CIO project to design a statewide GIS strategy). Additional federal/ state/local/private partnerships are documented in footnote 20.

74  

See <http://gai.fgdc.gov/portal/MaineGISRequirementsReport.pdf>, p. 102.

75  

The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission Year 2000 Digital Orthophoto Consortium brought together more than 40 local governments and state and federal agencies to acquire digital orthophotography that spanned the commission’s seven-county region around Chicago.

76  

Organized collaboration is not limited to government. Utility companies routinely build shared databases that are closed to the public.

77  

Testimony of Costis Toregas.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

entities in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area have created Metro GIS. Metro GIS facilitates data sharing among members, licenses data to outside users, provides a forum for exchanging best practices, and helps members coordinate their respective data collection programs.78

  • Contract Work. Some agencies perform data development and processing services under contract to other government entities. This encourages agencies to pay close attention to what their users want.79

  • Agency Assessments. Maine, Michigan, and Kentucky fund substantial geographic data development and project support through voluntary assessments on selected state agencies.80 This model provides a strong incentive to pay attention to user needs in order to obtain new assessments in later years.

4.2.6.2 Sharing Geographic Data

Advocates claim that open sharing of geographic data encourages users to find and report errors, create useful reports and maps, and suggest innovative projects and improvements.81 Detailed scrutiny and use by hundreds of citizen, agency, and business users can result in substantial benefits fed back to the agency. However, if an agency chooses to unilaterally share its geographic data openly, reluctance of other agencies to share can sometimes be a problem. Nonetheless, because practical access to an agency’s geographic data can be much greater when agency personnel cooperate, requesting agencies have a strong incentive to reciprocate, and willingness to share increases over time. Arguably, some benefits of sharing data also can be realized through licensing. In some cases (e.g., Palm Beach and Broward counties, Florida), licensing

78  

See <http:www.metrogis.org>.

79  

Applied Geographics, Inc., 2002, GIS Needs Assessment and Requirements Analysis, available at <http://gai.fgdc.gov/portal/MaineGISRequirementsReport.pdf>. The North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis also develops datasets and performs analyses under contract to multiple state and federal agencies.

80  

Id. at pp. 92–93, 98

81  

Testimony of Robert Amos.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

agreements provide incentives for formal cooperation and collaboration among parties to the agreement.

4.3 LICENSING GOVERNMENT-OWNED DATA TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Federal agencies have almost always distributed geographic data at or below marginal cost of distribution.82 However, during the 1990s, many state and local governments became intrigued by the idea that their underfunded GIS programs83 could become at least partially self-supporting. Since then, various state and local jurisdictions have experimented with licensing geographic data to others at rates that exceed the marginal cost of distribution.84 Today, many—but not all—local government administrators believe that they have the legal authority to obtain copyrights on their geographic data, and have the right to distribute these data under license if they so choose.85 Nonetheless, most still refrain from imposing license restrictions on reuse outside government.

Recent experiences in licensing by government to others include

  • Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium, Kentucky. This local government and utility consortium maintains large-scale data on such items as land parcels, roads, curbs, fire hydrants, and building footprints. It regularly uses license restrictions to

82  

Congress’s persistent efforts to “commercialize space” are a notable exception. We discuss the Landsat experience later in this section.

83  

Politicians usually assign a low priority to GIS (testimony of Randy Johnson).

84  

For example, state and local governments have experimented with licensing geographic data in Arizona, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Utah (Applied Geographics, Inc., 2002, GIS Needs Assessment and Requirements Analysis, available at <http://gai.fgdc.gov/portal/MaineGISRequirementsReport.pdf>).

85  

Their position is controversial. Citizens recently won a lawsuit forcing Greenwich, Connecticut’s city government to disclose its geographic data (see, e.g., <http://www.rcfp.org/news/2002/1030whitak.html> and subsequent articles at < http://www.greenwichtime.com/>). Additionally, Connecticut (in CT House Bill [H.B.] 5014 and CT H.B. 5039), Hawaii (in HI H.B. 443 and HI Senate Bill 427), and New York (in NY Assembly Bill 804) are all considering legislation that would restrict the public’s access to geographic data (testimony of John Palatiello, Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors [MAPPS]).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
  • control the potential “free service bureau” role that open records treatment might encourage,

  • earn a return on original consortium members’ capital and maintenance investments,

  • generate fee-based income for reinvestment,

  • control third-party redistribution,

  • require appropriate credit and attribution by makers of derivative products,

  • limit liability for inappropriate use of the data, and

  • limit the rights of third parties to create inappropriate derivative products.

  • Hennepin County, Minnesota. Governments in and around the Minneapolis/St. Paul area have experimented with fee-for-service models since the 1990s. Today, their Metro GIS organization sells custom GIS services for an hourly fee. However, the operation does not cover total costs, and Metro GIS is gradually phasing out fee-based services in favor of free distribution over the Internet.86 Nonetheless, many Metro GIS members continue to license data.87

  • Palm Beach County, Florida, entered into an agreement to share portions of its proprietary geographic databases, including its most up-to-date digital orthophotography, with a consortium of insurance companies and an airborne data provider. In return, the data provider has agreed to provide the county with proprietary digital orthophotography for disaster recovery purposes within five days of a hurricane.

  • Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Maryland DNR licensed geographic data to the private sector between 1992 and 2002. During the program’s last year of operation, DNR earned approximately $7,000 in sales but spent more than $13,000 supporting sales and distribution.88 Furthermore, sales declined during that period. Use rose 117 percent in the first seven weeks

86  

See <http://www.metrogis.org>. Testimony of Randy Johnson.

87  

As allowed in the Minnesota Data Practices Act § 13.03.

88  

These figures do not reflect Maryland’s initial $38,000 investment in a computerized system for handling online sales (testimony of William Burgess). The DNR also distributed data on a gratis basis to partners and contractors.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

after licensing ended. Staff now have more time for other activities.89

  • Kentucky. Kentucky legislation allows state agencies to charge fees above the cost of distribution when the request is for “a commercial purpose.”90 Some agencies use licenses to generate these fees and limit redistribution to third parties. One example is the State of Kentucky Natural Heritage program.91 This program distributes its biological data to NatureServe, which then adds value and resells them. A portion of NatureServe’s revenue is returned to the state agency. The Natural Heritage program also provides data and analysis for specific land parcels or sites to consultants on a fee-for-service basis.

  • Landsat. Congress has tried at least five separate funding programs for Landsat since the early 1970s. These include public, private, and hybrid schemes. From 1985 to 1992, Landsat followed a commercialization model. Despite high prices, the program failed to recover a significant fraction of Landsat’s costs. At the same time, traditional users in universities, corporations, and government agencies were priced out of the market, reducing Landsat’s use. Congress ultimately abandoned the comercialization program.92

  • Radarsat. The Canadian Radarsat program sells synthetic aperture radar images to private users. In the past, and unlike most government fee-for-service licenses, Radarsat users received an unlimited right to produce value-added derivative products.93 In particular, the rights were broader than those found in commercial satellite licenses, which typically prohibit redistribution of derivative

89  

Testimony of William Burgess.

90  

Kentucky Open Records Law § 61.870 et seq. (see L. P. Dando, 1993, A survey of open records law in relation to recovery of database costs: An end in search of a means, in Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), 1993, Marketing Government Geographic Information, Washington, D.C., URISA, pp. 5–22.)

91  

See <http://www.naturepreserves.ky.gov/heritage/>.

92  

Testimony of Joanne Gabrynowicz, University of Mississippi School of Law.

93  

This was the case in versions of Radarsat’s License Agreement dated October 26, 1995, and updated October 30, 1998 (see <http://books.nap.edu/books/NI000903/html/337.html#pagetop>).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

products that can be inverted to recover the vendor’s original data. The current Radarsat license allows redistribution of derivative products, but with restrictions that, for example, disallow retention of the original pixel structure from their images.94

  • Europe. During the early 1990s, many European governments began selling geographic and weather data. Despite high prices, revenue was negligible. High prices also seem to have stifled the growth of a U.S.-style private weather industry in Europe. European governments might have earned more through an increased tax base than they received in direct fees.95 Over the past five years, worldwide enthusiasm for government cost recovery has declined. Many countries have either implemented or are actively considering U.S.-style marginal cost-of-distribution rules.96

The committee found no example of a U.S. local or state government geographic data program that covered more than a small fraction of its total GIS budget through data sales or licensing to customers outside government. In many and perhaps most cases, government sales operations fail to recover their own costs.97

94  

See <http://www.rsi.ca/about/legal/license.asp>.

95  

The value of contracts in the weather risk management industry in the five years ending in 2002 was nearly $12 billion, whereas the European market was $720 million over the same period. The difference generally is attributed to restricted dissemination of taxpayer-funded information in Europe compared to the United States. Although the European Union economy and the U.S. economy are about the same size, the United States spends twice as much on creating public sector information. The economic impact on society in terms of job creation, wealth creation, and taxes is a factor of 5 larger in the United States than in Europe (See P. Weiss, 2003, Conflicting international public-sector information policies and their effects on the public domain and the economy, in NRC, The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain, Washington, D.C., National Academies Press).

In a parallel to the European experience, Don Cooke and Robert Amos testified that companies looking for new locations in which to invest tend to focus on areas where geographic data are freely available, at the expense of fee-for-service jurisdictions.

96  

These include Australia, China, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, New Zealand, and Sweden. Japan already disseminates geographic data at marginal cost of distribution (testimony of Peter Weiss).

97  

B. Joffe, 2003, 10 Ways to Support Your GIS Without Selling Data, available at <http://www.opendataconsortium.org/documents/10Ways_SupportGIS_Article.pdf>.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
4.3.1 Government Licensing to Others for Nonrevenue Reasons

Governments also distribute data under license for reasons that have nothing to do with revenue generation. In addition to enabling proper attribution and minimizing liability,98 these reasons include

  • Enhancing Data Security. Licensing can provide a legal mechanism that discourages users from altering published data. This is particularly useful for protecting the integrity of data used in regulatory proceedings.

  • Promoting Collaboration. License regimes have been used as a vehicle for organizing and formalizing collaboration.99

4.4 COMMERCIAL EXPERIENCES IN LICENSING GEOGRAPHIC DATA AND SERVICES TO GOVERNMENT

The views of commercial geographic data providers vary widely with respect to whether government should acquire data by license. Some commercial providers believe that licensing restrictions on government data would burden their own organizations and their clients.100 Other companies have built their businesses around licensed data.101 In general, companies whose business models depend on adding value to data they gather from local, state, and federal agencies are less enthusiastic about a shift toward licensing to government agencies. Data providers whose primary business models involve selling imagery or low-value-added geographic products to government tend to be more enthusiastic about licensing to government. Companies that offer packaged solutions beyond basic geographic data have not seriously pursued domestic government

98  

See earlier section on benefits of government licensing from the commercial sector.

99  

For example, they have been used to define “interlocal” agreements and to clarify attribution and tertiary use rules between Florida’s Broward County property appraiser’s office and its partners.

100  

For example, EarthData (testimony of Bryan Logan) and GDT (testimony of Don Cooke).

101  

For example, GIS Solutions (testimony of Chris Friel), Navteq (testimony of Cindy Paulauskas), and DeLorme (testimony of David DeLorme).

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

clients but would be more interested in doing so if government agencies were willing to accept redistribution restrictions.102

4.4.1 Commercial Perspectives on Strengths and Weaknesses of Licensing

Commercial licenses are still evolving. Most companies involved in licensing geographic data to government that submitted comments to the committee believe that licensing has delivered significant benefits to government. These include

  • Cost Savings. Costs are spread among multiple customers, making data more affordable.103

  • Supporting Commercial Markets. Government acquisitions encourage greater commercial investment in technology104 and speculative data collection. This leads to a broader range of products for both government and private consumers.

At the same time, most companies recognize that licensing is less efficient and less straightforward than it could be. Problems include

  • Fragmented Markets. Would-be users can find the satellite and USGS data they need by searching a small number of well-organized Web sites. By contrast, local geographic data tend to be dispersed among thousands of local jurisdictions. Assembling multiple datasets at the county level usually requires substantial effort. Among other effects, this condition keeps licensing from delivering benefits that would otherwise be available.

  • Excessive License Restrictions. Negotiations often break down over complex use and redistribution restrictions. At the same time, many existing restrictions go unenforced.105 Some companies

102  

Navteq (testimony of Cindy Paulauskas), DeLorme (testimony of David DeLorme).

103  

Testimony of David DeLorme.

104  

Id.

105  

Digital Globe is not aware of cheating (testimony of Shawn Thompson); EarthData is not aware of cheating (testimony of Bryan Logan); enforcement is too complex to bother with, even though many people don’t delete files after

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

believe that simpler or more generous use and redistribution rights would increase total revenues.106

  • Incompatible License Rights. Different vendors rely on different business models. Even when individual license terms are reasonable, the combined restrictions may be unacceptable. Some observers believe that greater standardization may ameliorate this problem.107

  • Uncertain License Rights. Uncertain rights make licensed data less valuable to consumers. Some observers believe that clearer or more standardized rights would increase sales.108

  • Product Uncertainty. Agencies seldom tell industry what types of geographic data products they plan to develop. The resulting uncertainty inhibits investment. In some cases, neither government nor industry steps in, and needs go unmet. Among other effects, this blocks the creation of commercial products that would otherwise be licensed to government.

4.4.2 Summary of Commercial Experiences and Reflections

Although some companies earn significant revenues from licensing geographic data, most revenue from sales to the domestic government agency sector and other domestic clients still comes from selling data acquisition and processing services.109 The data acquisition-for-hire model

   

their annual subscription period ends (testimony of Chris Friel, GIS Solutions Inc.); DeLorme spends nothing on enforcement—it is more cost-effective to invest in new products instead (testimony of David DeLorme); Navteq spends a small fraction on enforcement, although it does monitor competing products for traps and audits (testimony of Cindy Paulauskas).

106  

License terms impede sales and have become “a brake on the industry” (testimony of Bryan Logan); dissatisfaction with licenses has persuaded many consumers to “make do” with public domain data or refly missions de novo (testimony of Chris Friel).

107  

See, for example, testimony of Chris Friel.

108  

Downstream product rights are not clearly defined, although the situation is improving (testimony of Bryan Logan).

109  

This is the sense of the committee and industry observers (personal communications, December 2003, from James Plasker, American Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing; Charles Mondello, Pictometry, Inc.; and

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

persists because agencies and other traditional large-volume purchasers in the private sector (1) are accustomed to purchasing data acquisition services,110 (2) perceive that they have specialized requirements that are not met by prepackaged licensed products, or (3) believe they gain the best value by acquiring full ownership rights in the acquired geographic data.

As a general proposition, agencies are not convinced that licensing offers significant overall price reductions compared to data acquisition services for large-volume airborne imagery purchases.

Commercial success with the licensing model tends to occur with data sales to large numbers of nontraditional low-volume customers who acquire imagery or other basic geographic data that were unaffordable under the acquisition service model. Examples include AirPhotoUSA (data for realtors and appraisers), and Navteq (data for transportation managers). Commercial vendors also have built successful business models based on licensing bundled packages of software tools and data.

Finally, commercial vendors recently have begun to successfully distribute, under license, value-added geographic data layers that include such information as land-use classifications and physical structures.111 These products can sometimes offer substantial savings over traditional fee-for-service acquisition models. Licensed data can be a viable alternative when users are sufficiently flexible to accept predefined scale and classification schemes.

The geographic data industry is evolving rapidly. Some observers believe that existing product or fee-for-service models will eventually converge, making license restrictions looser but also more prevalent.112 Other observers argue that technology eventually will drive data acquisition costs so low that it will become pointless to distribute old data under

   

John Palatiello, MAPPS), although it has not been possible to support this with revenue statements because they are not broken down in a convenient way.

110  

Navteq perceives agencies as having a “not invented here” reluctance to license outside data (testimony of Cindy Paulauskas); agencies often resist licensing, and work together to pursue alternative strategies (testimony of Bryan Logan).

111  

For example, Earthsat sells licenses to its GeoCover product with worldwide land cover. Sanborn’s CitySets contains physical structures and, among many options, the number of floors and construction materials therein. The insurance industry relies heavily on these products. Insurance Services Office sells subscription services to a fire risk database in California. The service provides such information as fuel, windiness of roads, and slope. ISO also provides a subscription service to locations of hydrants and capability of fire response by jurisdiction.

112  

Testimony of Gene Colabatistto.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

license.113 Still other observers argue that technology will accelerate licensing by making existing subscription services simpler so that data can be sold as products.

For now, the only safe prediction is that licensing models will continue to evolve. Company representatives identified four trends that are likely to make licensing stronger over time.

  1. Improved Contract Design. Some vendors have begun to promote clear, attractive licenses as a sales tool. Competition between vendors will almost certainly make licenses more attractive to consumers.114

  2. Validation. Consumers are often skeptical about the quality of licensed data.115 Some vendors believe that government or commercial-sector certification could increase sales.116

  3. Standard Licenses. Licenses that were formerly negotiated on a one-off basis are becoming standardized.117 This trend is likely to reduce transaction costs and legal uncertainty over time.

  4. Simplification of Negotiations. Each successful negotiation provides a template for the next one.118 For this reason, negotiating costs should fall over time. At the same time, changing

113  

Testimony of Bryan Logan.

114  

Testimony of Gene Colabatistto and Cindy Paulauskas.

115  

In Chapter 6, Section 6.2.1, we discuss the problems that are created by the fact that information is an “experience good,” one for which the acquirers may be unable to attach a value until after they have used it.

116  

Testimony of John Palatiello and Bryan Logan. The government already certifies aeronautical and marine navigation charts.

117  

Navteq offers click-and-accept automotive licenses over the Internet (testimony of Cindy Paulauskas); testimony of John Palatiello describing MAPPS efforts to develop standard-form licenses for its members. Standardized contracts are only one means for reducing transactions costs. In Chapter 6, Section 6.2.1, we also briefly discuss the use of blanket licenses and the creation of centralized marketplaces, which can effect the same types of reductions.

118  

The effect of cumulative past behavior on costs is termed “learning by doing” by economists. Chris Friel testified how parties used an earlier agreement to move deadlocked negotiations forward, but consider testimony of Cindy Paulauskas that vendors may keep successful licenses secret in order to preserve competitive advantage.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

technology and business models may delay the process by making earlier transactions irrelevant.119

4.5 ACADEMIC AND LIBRARY EXPERIENCES IN LICENSING GEOGRAPHIC DATA AND SERVICES, AND REFLECTIONS

Members of the global scholarly community have taken advantage of the inexpensive and efficient opportunities offered by digital networks to share data and knowledge among themselves with relatively few legal, policy, or technological encumbrances. Most researchers within the academic community and government support the notion that publicly funded data of interest to researchers should be openly available, absent compelling considerations and policies to the contrary.120 As stated in an OECD report,121 “[a]ccess to and sharing of data reinforces open scientific inquiry, encourages diversity of analysis and opinion, promotes new research, makes possible the testing of new or alternative hypotheses and methods of analysis, supports studies on data collection methods and measurement, facilitates the education of new researchers, enables the exploration of topics not envisioned by the initial investigators, and permits the creation of new data sets when data from multiple sources are combined.” Geographic data are also used in education from elementary schools up to and including graduate-level research. Unrestricted access to government geographic data enhances these uses.

The interests of students, teachers, researchers, libraries, and university administrators in gaining access to geographic data are not necessarily aligned. Students and teachers may need legal and convenient access to data to accomplish class demonstrations, laboratory exercises, and class projects, but care little about the right to publish datasets or derivative products. Researchers need full and open access to the work of others, including the underlying data upon which processes have been applied or hypotheses have been tested, to test the validity of published findings.

119  

Testimony of Chris Friel in relation to changing technology; testimony of Bryan Logan in relation to changing business models.

120  

For a discussion of the economic perspective on publicly funded research, see NRC, 1997, Bits of Power: Issues in Global Access to Scientific Data, Washington, D.C., National Academies Press.

121  

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2002, Interim Report, OECD Follow Up Group on Issues of Access to Publicly Funded Research Data, available at <http://dataaccess.ucsd.edu/Final_Interim_Report_20Oct2002.doc>.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

Thus, they need the legal and practical ability to access, use, and extend datasets, including the right to publish. University library administrators have an interest in balancing the needs of all information resource demands on a campus as well as supporting the continuation of library functions. For this reason, their needs seldom reflect the priorities of any single researcher or academic group. University administrators must balance an even broader range of demands, and may be tempted to impose restrictions on the free flow of the information products of their faculty and researchers in attempts to increase their own institution’s income.

Scientists and legal scholars are exploring and pursuing institutional, technological, and legal approaches designed to preserve openness and promote the advancement of science and innovation. For example, open-access electronic publishing approaches are being implemented on a widespread basis.122 Some of these new dissemination options might be applied to geographic databases if licensing restrictions begin to encroach on the ability of scientists to access scientific knowledge.

In general, scholarly producers of academic and research materials are among the strongest advocates for the free flow of publicly funded data and information of use to the scientific community, including the data and information that the academic community itself produces. The general belief is that “government should support full, open and unrestricted access to scientific data for public interest purposes—particularly statistical, scientific, geographical, environmental, and meteorological information of great public benefit. Such efforts to improve the exploitation of public-sector information contribute significantly to maximizing its commercial, scientific, research and environmental use.”123

4.6 SUMMARY

4.6.1 Government Experiences Licensing Geographic Data and Services from and to the Private Sector

Despite recent interest in licensing, most federal agencies still prefer full ownership rights in the data that they acquire, when this option is available. Their reasons include increased flexibility in the use of such

122  

See Directory of Open Access Journals, <http://www.doaj.org>. See also <http://www.arl.org/scomm/open_access/framing.html#openaccess>.

123  

P. Weiss, 2002, Borders in Cyberspace: Conflicting Public Sector Information Policies and Their Economic Impacts, Summary Report. Available at <http://www.weather.gov/sp/Bordersreport2.pdf>.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

data, support of agency and federal mandates relating to access and dissemination, avoidance of duplication and waste, and saving money. Nonetheless, all of the federal agencies that testified before the committee have acquired commercial data under license. Their reasons vary from being able to make maps faster and more cheaply to having no realistic alternative. Reactions to licensing differ from agency to agency, although there appears to be a general consensus that any cost advantage offered by licenses must be weighed against constraints on current and possible future use and the interest in free exchange of information. In some cases, the coordination, negotiation, and administration costs associated with licensing are higher than those of other procurement methods.

Federal agencies almost always distribute geographic data at or below marginal cost of distribution. Since the 1990s, however, many state and local governments have experimented with using licenses to generate revenue from their data.124 Ten years later, many of these entities have concluded that fee programs (1) cannot recover a significant fraction of government data budgets, (2) seldom cover operating expenses, and (3) act as a drag on private-sector investments that would otherwise add to the tax base and grow the economy. However, licenses to provide data to users may be useful to enforce proper attribution, minimize liability, enhance data security, and formalize collaboration.

4.6.2 Ways in Which Licensing Between Government and the Private Sector Serves Agency Missions and the Interests of Stakeholders in Government Data

Agency missions can be broadly grouped into those requiring broad, limited, or internal data redistribution; those requiring distribution of derivative products; and those ensuring adequate citizen access and judicial review. In addition to utilizing outright purchases of data, agencies have experimented with a range of licenses to satisfy their missions, with mixed results. For the most part, agencies whose missions require broad dissemination find licensed data less useful than agencies that have small numbers of users or need licensed data as an input for making derivative products. Over time, some agencies have learned to negotiate new types

124  

Examples included Hennepin County, Minnesota; the State of Maryland; and various European weather services. See also examples cited in Open Data Consortium, 2003, 10 Ways to Support Your GIS Without Selling Data, available at <http://www.opendataconsortium.org>.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

of licenses that potentially offer better value to both the agency and commercial data suppliers.

Commercial data vendors have a mixture of attitudes to licensing. In general, those providers whose business models depend on adding value to data gathered from local, state, and federal agencies at the cost of distribution tend to oppose government data acquisition through licensing. Those providers whose primary business models involve selling imagery or low-value-added geographic products to government generally welcome the prospect of licensing data to the government.

Academic users and producers are among the strongest advocates for the free flow of government geographic data as well as the free flow of any other publicly funded data and information of use to the scientific community. Nonetheless, the interests of students, teachers, researchers, librarians, and university administrators in gaining access to geographic data are not necessarily the same. For example, students and teachers may need legal and convenient access to data to accomplish class demonstrations, laboratory exercises, and class projects, but may care little about the right to openly publish datasets or derivative products. Researchers, on the other hand, need the legal and practical ability to access, use, and extend the datasets and work products of others, including the right to publish.

Ultimately, however, although agencies are often charged with promoting the public interest, the interests of actual and potential user groups may be discounted by agencies faced with budgetary constraints and vendors’ demands.

4.6.3 Arguments in Favor of and in Opposition to Licensing Arrangements

Arguments in favor of licensing data as opposed to outright purchase include reducing acquisition costs in many instances, making data immediately available, enabling faster build times for operational information systems, structuring data release after a given embargo period, supporting specific agency projects as opposed to ongoing operations or decision-making functions, updating or correcting existing government databases, supporting national security uses, allocating risk, ensuring proper attribution, and supporting commercial markets. Arguments against licensing include increased acquisition cost in some instances; increased negotiation, coordination, administration, and enforcement costs; uncertain use and redistribution conditions; limited redistribution rights; inability to meet specialized needs; and loss of public domain effects. Nonetheless, licenses

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

continue to evolve rapidly and are likely to improve over time. Suggestions from the commercial sector for improving and increasing adoption of licenses include promoting better contract design, encouraging validation of licensed data to increase user confidence, developing standard-form licenses, and simplifying negotiations.

Having presented the current state of licensing experiences in this chapter, we now proceed over the next three chapters to distill the legal, economic, and public interest underpinnings of U.S. data policy in preparation for the succeeding two chapters that look to future approaches to licensing and options that could address the interests of all stakeholders in geographic data.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

VIGNETTE D.
A SCIENTIST’S DREAM

For thousands of years, humans believed that wildfires were unpredictable and unknowable. By the late twentieth century, scientists knew better: Measure how different fuels burn in the laboratory, acquire detailed positional data on fuels and physical conditions in the field, gather details on atmospheric conditions, and after that, everything is physics and computer models. Better computer models would result in better planning for wildfires, more timely emergency response, and savings in avoided damage to property and loss of lives.

However, the models are voracious. They require detailed and up-to-date positional information on dozens of variables. Some of the needed data can be gathered by dropping ”smart dust“—autonomous millimeter-scale sensing and communication devices that track temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, light intensity, vibrations, and location—into the path of an active fire. Other needed data such as slope angles, soil types, moisture in the upper soil, vegetative ground-cover mass and moisture content, wind direction, and wind speed come from such sources as digital elevation maps, meteorological stations, ground penetrating radar, and satellite images. By correlating the active burn conditions with the prefire in situ conditions using all available data, fire progression models can be greatly improved. However, there is one more needed dataset that cannot be gathered after the fact.

In this instance, the only existing preburn imagery that is sufficiently current and detailed to allow adequate vegetation mass estimates for model development is in the archives of a commercial satellite company. Dr. Karen Jones is able to quickly find the data source online. To do good science, Dr. Jones also needs permission to disseminate the results in a manner that will ensure in-depth peer review by other scientists testing her conclusions. Fortunately, in the new geographic data marketplace, companies are increasingly flexible and liberal in granting affordable use rights to basic imagery such as the preburn imagery needed by Dr. Jones and her colleagues.

The dream comes down to this: Can the geographic data market continue to shift to reasonably and readily agree to the needed license under the desired use conditions?

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"4 Experiences of Government in Licensing Geographic Data From and To the Private Sector." National Research Council. 2004. Licensing Geographic Data and Services. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11079.
×
Page 102
Next: 5 Legal Analysis »
Licensing Geographic Data and Services Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $100.00 Buy Ebook | $79.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Geographic data are used in all sectors of society to support a huge range of applications ranging from emergency response to land-use planning to location-based services. In the past, government agencies typically acquired ownership of such data from private-sector and other data producers and distributed these data without restriction. Licensing--whereby the producer may restrict redistribution--has emerged as an alternative business model that agencies must now consider among a suite of procurement options. The report highlights licensing perspectives and experiences of major stakeholder groups and examines the pros and cons of licensing. It concludes that licensing may be a viable option in some instances and advises agencies on how to best serve societal interests.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!