Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
SteveC steve at asklater.com writes: I discovered that people are just rectifying using google aerial and stuff, which breaks our paranoid/cautious stance on accepting copyright derived work. I speak now only about the i-cubed Landsat layer because OpenAerialMap does not have anything better from Finland. Perhaps there is some fundamental difference in copyrights when making drawings on top of the same i-cubed imagery that is delivered either through Yahoo or OpenAerialMap, but for sure there is a big practical difference: OpenAerialMap was giving more zooming levels. I am missing those. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
[cc:ed to legal-talk] Andy Allan wrote: That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they explicitly say otherwise. Public Domain isn't viral for derived works. Probably the biggest thing I've learned about copyright since getting involved with OSM is how easy it is to overstate your rights as copyright holder. That's not really too surprising for those of us from the UK, which has a very maximalist attitude to geodata copyright (or at least the OS does, and it shouts loudest): if you come from the States you'll have a different take on these things. I'm not even going to attempt to pronounce definitively on OAM, as I've not researched it particularly deeply. But I'd be reasonably certain that iCubed's colour correction in itself doesn't qualify as copyright-worthy for the purposes of tracing, so there's no issue in deriving from their flavour of Landsat. It's a bit like the NPE scans where I say you can trace from these without restriction - that's not me being nice (well, partly :) ), that's a recognition that the acts of scanning and rectification haven't created a new copyright over the geodata. (The severable improvement stuff may be relevant here. Maybe. Someone who knows remotely wtf they're talking about will be able to do better than me.) With the non-Landsat OAM images, the same argument can be had. Does rectification against Google create a new copyright? I can see an argument either way: a year ago I'd have said yes it does, now I'm leaning a bit more towards no it doesn't. But it really comes down to how cautious/paranoid you are, and OSM always takes the ultra-cautious route, which is why Steve's asked them to be removed for now. (It's reasonably easily settled - either get Google to give the ok, or rerectify against OSM. Better still, rerectify against OSM's GPS traces alone, thereby sidestepping potential CC-BY-SA issues.) Oh yeah, and then you have to think about contracts. Let's not even go there. Side-issue: the discussion at WhereCamp about are Google and Microsoft killing the ecosystem? looks really interesting - maybe someone who was there could post or blog about it. But, you know, a really great way for them to nurture the ecosystem - which is ultimately in their interests - would be if they could give definitive, permissive answers to things like this. Is anyone asking? Should we? (Even better still, they could do a Yahoo with their aerial imagery - yeah, I know, oink oink flap flap.) cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
Steve Hill wrote: Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well? I haven't seen anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database, accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too. They're not explicitly licensed otherwise, but it's very, very debatable whether they cross the threshold to be copyrightable. [suggest follow-ups to legal-talk] cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
Hi, Probably the biggest thing I've learned about copyright since getting involved with OSM is how easy it is to overstate your rights as copyright holder. Most do it because they don't know better. (Some don't even write the name Microsoft in a public article because tehy somehow think that they might need permission for that.) Some also do it maliciously (Scientology's stock method of silencing critics is to argue that their criticism is based on copyrighted material). I think the Science Commons guys have a rather enlightened viewpoint when they say (on http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases/): (quote) We recommend that database providers make it clear that only some elements of their database are protected by copyright (and subject to a Creative Commons license) and some elements are free to be used reused outside of the license. As you know, Creative Commons and Science Commons work to promote freely available content and information. Our preference is that people do not overstate their copyright or other legal rights. Consequently, we adopt the position that facts are free and people should be educated so that they are aware of this. Database providers may want to think about including a statement where you include your Creative Commons Some Rights Reserved button that acknowledges that the database is only under a Creative Commons license to the extent that copyright protects the database and then give some examples of the elements in the database that are likely to be factual and excluded from the scope of copyright and the Creative Commons license. (unqoute) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
I discovered that people are just rectifying using google aerial and stuff, which breaks our paranoid/cautious stance on accepting copyright derived work. On 21 May 2008, at 21:55, Tomáš Tichý wrote: What happened to Openaerialmap layer in Potlatch? I see only - signs on the place where it was in menu. Tomas Tichy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
The wording of the main/first data source never filled me with confidence either: There is currently some question as to the licensing terms for this data. This is being resolved as quickly as possible. Until then, it is best to assume that this imagery can not be used outside of OpenAerialMap. http://openaerialmap.hypercube.telascience.org/datasource/1/ Doesn't feel to me like a confident, unambigious, free to use in OSM phrase. Cheers, Andy On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:36 PM, SteveC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I discovered that people are just rectifying using google aerial and stuff, which breaks our paranoid/cautious stance on accepting copyright derived work. On 21 May 2008, at 21:55, Tomáš Tichý wrote: What happened to Openaerialmap layer in Potlatch? I see only - signs on the place where it was in menu. Tomas Tichy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk Best Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com writes: The wording of the main/first data source never filled me with confidence either: There is currently some question as to the licensing terms for this data. This is being resolved as quickly as possible. Until then, it is best to assume that this imagery can not be used outside of OpenAerialMap. http://openaerialmap.hypercube.telascience.org/datasource/1/ Doesn't feel to me like a confident, unambigious, free to use in OSM phrase. Cheers, Andy The same original public domain Landsat images can be downloaded from several places, for example from landsat.org. Then it should be OK to digitise features forwhat ever purpose over them. Unfortunately those images need to be colour adjusted first. I have done that for about 150 scenes around the Baltic sea area and Scandinavia with Open source tools (GDAL and OSSIM) but it was bigger task than I thought. Same images are also available as very nice ready made colour balanced mosaics from Geotorrent.org. Those mosaics are free for any use as well. The Europe Landsat Mosaic is missing half of Finland, therefore I started to make my own. I think that what is uncertain with OpenAerialMap is if the imagery that is colour adjusted by i-Cubed can be taken out from OAM, not if you can do derived work based on it. But who knows, perhaps being paranoid is the only safe alternative. -Jukka Rahkonen- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Jukka Rahkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that what is uncertain with OpenAerialMap is if the imagery that is colour adjusted by i-Cubed can be taken out from OAM, not if you can do derived work based on it. That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they explicitly say otherwise. Public Domain isn't viral for derived works. But who knows, perhaps being paranoid is the only safe alternative. Absolutely. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
[cc:ed to legal-talk] Andy Allan wrote: That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they explicitly say otherwise. Public Domain isn't viral for derived works. Probably the biggest thing I've learned about copyright since getting involved with OSM is how easy it is to overstate your rights as copyright holder. That's not really too surprising for those of us from the UK, which has a very maximalist attitude to geodata copyright (or at least the OS does, and it shouts loudest): if you come from the States you'll have a different take on these things. I'm not even going to attempt to pronounce definitively on OAM, as I've not researched it particularly deeply. But I'd be reasonably certain that iCubed's colour correction in itself doesn't qualify as copyright-worthy for the purposes of tracing, so there's no issue in deriving from their flavour of Landsat. It's a bit like the NPE scans where I say you can trace from these without restriction - that's not me being nice (well, partly :) ), that's a recognition that the acts of scanning and rectification haven't created a new copyright over the geodata. (The severable improvement stuff may be relevant here. Maybe. Someone who knows remotely wtf they're talking about will be able to do better than me.) With the non-Landsat OAM images, the same argument can be had. Does rectification against Google create a new copyright? I can see an argument either way: a year ago I'd have said yes it does, now I'm leaning a bit more towards no it doesn't. But it really comes down to how cautious/paranoid you are, and OSM always takes the ultra-cautious route, which is why Steve's asked them to be removed for now. (It's reasonably easily settled - either get Google to give the ok, or rerectify against OSM. Better still, rerectify against OSM's GPS traces alone, thereby sidestepping potential CC-BY-SA issues.) Oh yeah, and then you have to think about contracts. Let's not even go there. Side-issue: the discussion at WhereCamp about are Google and Microsoft killing the ecosystem? looks really interesting - maybe someone who was there could post or blog about it. But, you know, a really great way for them to nurture the ecosystem - which is ultimately in their interests - would be if they could give definitive, permissive answers to things like this. Is anyone asking? Should we? (Even better still, they could do a Yahoo with their aerial imagery - yeah, I know, oink oink flap flap.) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
Is there any way to enable only safe data layers from OAM in Potlatch? I am writing this, because there is black and white aerial imagery of the Czech Republic from local goverment agency (UHUL), which permitted to use it for OSM mapping. This imagery is now part of OAM data. It is possible to use it with JOSM or Merkaartor, but I personally prefer Potlatch for mapping and it's a pity that I can´t use it anymore. Tomas On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Andy Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Jukka Rahkonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that what is uncertain with OpenAerialMap is if the imagery that is colour adjusted by i-Cubed can be taken out from OAM, not if you can do derived work based on it. That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they explicitly say otherwise. Public Domain isn't viral for derived works. But who knows, perhaps being paranoid is the only safe alternative. Absolutely. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: (It's reasonably easily settled - either get Google to give the ok, or rerectify against OSM. Better still, rerectify against OSM's GPS traces alone, thereby sidestepping potential CC-BY-SA issues.) Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well? I haven't seen anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database, accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
Steve Hill wrote: Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well? I haven't seen anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database, accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too. They're not explicitly licensed otherwise, but it's very, very debatable whether they cross the threshold to be copyrightable. [suggest follow-ups to legal-talk] cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
Hi, Doesn't feel to me like a confident, unambigious, free to use in OSM phrase. On the other hand, we don't have anything in written from Yahoo! either, so if you want to be paranoid then drop Yahoo as well. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
What happened to Openaerialmap layer in Potlatch? I see only - signs on the place where it was in menu. Tomas Tichy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
