[OSM-legal-talk] Remapping - tags and practice
Hi all, As the licence change draws on, we will inevitably be looking at remapping objects touched by a decliner. I'm interested in how we (as users) tackle something like this: user A (agrees) surveys and maps user B (agrees) refines geometry and tags user C (agrees) refines geometry and tags user D (declines) makes tag change, e.g. highway=unpaved-highway=track user E (agrees) refines geometry and (other) tags user F (agrees) refines geometry and (other) tags (This is a fairly common situation where I map; talk-gb people may be able to guess the context.) Obviously it's trivial to construct an ODbL-ready version of the above; simply back out user D's tag change. I'm interested, however, in how this should be best done in practice. Should I a) create a new object which is the same as A+B+C+E+F, with a tag such as history=formerly way 8678374, user 891 removed? b) simply change the existing way to remove user D's contributions, and add a tag (to the changeset or the way?) to say user 891 removed c) or something else? If b), then such a tag needs to be machine-parseable by, at least, the eventual remove decliners script, and ideally information services such as WTFE, odbl.de, etc. etc... so we probably need to agree on what it is. Any thoughts? cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
- Original Message - From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everyone I've ever known. (1) and hence the secret of Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources (2) On a more serious note: I think it's important to remember that there's a difference between (a) that the creation of something (B) has been influenced by something else (A), even more directly impacted by A, (b) that B is derived from A, and finally, (c) that B is a derivative work of A. I was involved with publishing (student) song books (in Finland) when I was younger and we needed to do some wrestling to get the publishing rights (without getting fined, not to mention take-down/pull-out demands) for a number of (student) songs the lyrics of which were not only clearly influenced by copyrighted song lyrics but were quite clearly derived from them. At the end of the day we couldn't publish one song which was deemed a derivative work but at the same time we were able to successfully get publishing rights for many because they were _not_ seen being derivative works even though there was a pretty clear link with many of them to the original song. In the mapping scene or any other international project there's obviously a major difficulty in the fact that different countries laws / tradition treat these issues differently. But the basics are nevertheless the same, I _guess_. Surely OSM can't rely on guessing so it makes sense to be safer than sorry. But it IMHO it doesn't make sense to try to be holier than the pope, so to say. But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states that he has no clue of what kind of road/path/track/river?/ditch/wall/other it is) and then (2) I go to survey the road with GPS, upload the trace (or even simply overlay it with existing data in JOSM) and then tweak the road according to my trace+observations + tag it approriately. And I say that this holds true even if I'd leave a few nodes untouched (because they happened to be where my trace was). Leaving aside the legal / moral validity of the statement I say that this holds true even if I'd leave a few nodes untouched (because they happened to be where my trace was), there is a practical problem with your example. In your example you give the reason the nodes were untouched as being they happened to be where my trace was. In reality we wont know why these nodes were untouched. They may have been untouched because: (I) they happened to be where your trace was (ii) they were simply missed when you did the tracing in the area of your GPX track (iii) the way was a long way and some nodes were outside the area covered by your GPX track. (iv) other reasons. By virtue of the fact the node is untouched we know there will be no information attaching to the node to describe why its position was not moved, so we cant make any assumption about it. Now, surely some jack-ass lawyer could claim that a single (or the few) node(s) that I didn't touch creates a copyright violation and sue me. I could only say: please do. I presume you are here refering to the copyright of the way containing the untouched nodes. What percentage of untouched nodes on a way would you consider safe to use when determining whether the way contains no copyright from the original mapper? Regards David But I know s/he wouldn't. My work could very well be said having been derived (to an extent) from the original work -- but would certainly not be a derived work. (And someone may well disagree with that, and I appreciate that opinion. But I could bet my head on it.) Having said the above it's obviously a different thing that how OSM as a community wants to or even should handle various different situations regarding license change and dealing with data from non-complient sources. I just wanted to note what I think holds very true; that there's a difference between being derived from (to an extent!) and being a derivative work (as seen by law). Just my 2 cents, -Jaakko (1) Chuck Palahniukhttp://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2546.Chuck_Palahniuk (Invisible Monsters http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/849507) (2) Albert Einsteinhttp://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein (misquoated to him, it seems) -- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
John Smith deltafoxtrot256@... writes: On 5 July 2011 05:42, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaakko@... wrote: But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states that he has no clue of what kind of road/path/track/river?/ditch/wall/other it is) and then I agree with this only if you could give the same source of data to 10 different people and get the same result each time, for most roads there is some creativity that goes into selecting where to place nodes, which is recognised by most countries since making makes is deemed a creative enterprise. What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a node? If I put one additional node into the way or remove one, is that enough? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
David, My point was to note that being influenced by, being (somewhat) derived from and being a derivativer work are all different things. Period. Additionally I wanted to describe an example where one mapper goes about and produces a simple yet copyrighted work (via arm-chair mapping) and then one (or more people both add the necessary details for the trace to actually become a useful map object _and_ they also change/finetune most of the object geometry (including quite possibly cutting the rd some places where there in fact isn't a rd etc). And I stated for _that example_ that the amount of copyright left (term most probably not existing) is next to nothing for the original tracer; escecially if/when one or more ppl have also used their collected gps traces + new imagery to tweak the geometry. So, in the light of license change (or even copyright violations -- tracing originally from faulty sources) the fact that the 1st creator doesn't agree to the license anymore (or didn't have right to use the original source) will have gotten diminished (if that's any proper expression) at _some_ point. Period. Yes, theoretically there is some creative input left in the work, even some derivative, at least a touch of influence. And in practice some wonderful lawyer or a kind fellow mapper for that mapper could make a fuzz out of things, even sue. But strongly think that: (A) there wouldn't be a case. (B) the moral rights left would have been vanished at _some_ point. So u ask: What percentage of untouched nodes on a way would you consider safe to use when determining whether the way contains no copyright from the original mapper? I don't know. Perhaps 1.324%? As per my description there isn't a formula (at _some_ point). Would b gr8 to have one but such doesn't exist. And this is a (major?) part of why regardless of what I think of what is left of the actual copyright I also think -- as I think I wrote before -- that the community may well need to decide differently on the issue and I could well see myself supporting something stricter (if someone drags me into voting or otherwise casting an opinion on such a decision). Cheers, -Jaakko Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -- Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta -Original Message- From: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:37:51 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes - Original Message - From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everyone I've ever known. (1) and hence the secret of Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources (2) On a more serious note: I think it's important to remember that there's a difference between (a) that the creation of something (B) has been influenced by something else (A), even more directly impacted by A, (b) that B is derived from A, and finally, (c) that B is a derivative work of A. I was involved with publishing (student) song books (in Finland) when I was younger and we needed to do some wrestling to get the publishing rights (without getting fined, not to mention take-down/pull-out demands) for a number of (student) songs the lyrics of which were not only clearly influenced by copyrighted song lyrics but were quite clearly derived from them. At the end of the day we couldn't publish one song which was deemed a derivative work but at the same time we were able to successfully get publishing rights for many because they were _not_ seen being derivative works even though there was a pretty clear link with many of them to the original song. In the mapping scene or any other international project there's obviously a major difficulty in the fact that different countries laws / tradition treat these issues differently. But the basics are nevertheless the same, I _guess_. Surely OSM can't rely on guessing so it makes sense to be safer than sorry. But it IMHO it doesn't make sense to try to be holier than the pope, so to say. But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states that he has no clue of what kind of road/path/track/river?/ditch/wall/other it is) and then (2) I go to survey the road with GPS, upload the trace (or even simply overlay it
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world can be classified as creative work, as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his effort, and any deviation is just imperfection and corrected once the right information is available. We aren't for the most part trying to make raster images of aerial imagery, so there is a lot of creativity that goes into making interpretations of the real world. I never met a OSM mapper saying he is using his creativity to create an original view of the world. Its not just a lack in precision and perfection that makes a work creative, the creator must also have the intention to add something of himself. In terms of copyright this doesn't matter, just like if you write a few lines of whatever, you automatically receive copyright on your work. In creating tiles the map I agree. Not in creating a database. In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of making it that matters and because there is human involvement that's all that matters. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Hi, John Smith writes: On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way, i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object. The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. so assume the nodes are part of a way that is not available under new CTs. The mapper who agreed did not only move part of the nodes replacing their information with new one and confirming the existence. He also adds new nodes in the middle of the way to have it look eg more smooth. You suggest, that because the way is not clearly licensed all nodes of that way have to be deleted, ignoring the individual license state of the nodes because they could be derived? I'm not a lawyer but as this is legal talk I'm sure someone can explain why this is the case. I always thought that to claim a copyright you need some minimum threshold of originality. OSM is a project about data collecting not about art. I have serious doubts that the individual painting of the shape of a road is high enough to claim a copyright. So why should a single node do? From the original created node is nothing left but an automatically generated id for which only the server could claim a copyright for the high creative effort of generating the id. The way containing the nodes is replaced by a new way (different shape) that is licensed as CC-BY-SA as it is a derived work. Only the shape was modified. The original author could still hold parts of copyrights (if they exist). But back to the question: what about the nodes? Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Hi, John Smith wrote: In both cases, either tagging something as clean or deleting and re-adding assumes good faith, we already know people copy data from incompatible sources, what's to stop someone simple cutting and pasting data or mass tagging ways as clean? Nothing. But assuming good faith is not something new; we do that now with respect to other data sources. If someone were to flag something as clean that isn't and he's found out, we would have to do exactly what we do if we find that someone has been copying from Google etc. Actually I think there's no way around some sort of good-faith-assuming, community-involving process here because there will always be corner cases that cannot be determined algorithmically and that have to be investigated by a human being. We will need to create set of workable guidelines for our community members to exercise judgement but there will always be an element of judgement. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
