Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
On 10/01/14 12:01, Simon Poole wrote: Am 10.01.2014 07:15, schrieb Clifford Snow: I like the Mapbox solution the author mentions of putting a box on the map to take you to another page. I realize that unless the user clicks on the link, they will never discover that OSM contributed to this product. Since OSM may be only one of many contributors this make sense considering that there is only so much screen real estate available. Clifford, to make this very short: this is NOT acceptable. See the last board minutes. The last board minutes say we expect people to follow what is in our Legal FAQ and states that the board will complain if attribution is not given. The FAQ says the credit should typically appear in the corner. And I'm very tired of people trying to weasel around the absolute minimal requirements we pose on reuse of OSM data. It seems a bit strong to say that MapBox are weasels given that the OSM attribution is given equal prominence with their own Terms and their imagery attribution. (By the way, Alex and Eric from MapBox are members of this mailing list.) Surely should be given equal prominence with the map copyright holder's own attribution would be a better principle than put it in the corner. Personally I agree with Clifford - I like MapBox's approach and agree that it would seem appropriate for a map with a longer list of attributions. What would happen if every data source started mandating that our attribution must be in the corner? Jonathan. -- Dr Jonathan Harley :Managing Director: SpiffyMap Ltd m...@spiffymap.com Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
Jonathan, On 13.01.2014 13:17, Jonathan Harley wrote: What would happen if every data source started mandating that our attribution must be in the corner? The thing is that for us, for OpenStreetMap, the attribution is our main remuneration. We give our data away for free but in return, we expect to get at least a little bit of exposure, a little help in building our brand to borrow some marketing speak. Much has been said about how happy we should be if people use our data, because in the end it's all good for us becasue it increases our mindshare and therefor our contributor numbers etc.; this reasoning falls over if we allow users to bury us as an also-ran in a list of building blocks for their map. This would be different if we were a paid-for data source, in which case our major remuneration would be the money people pay us for our data - in that case, we could afford to be less demanding with regards to the attribution. But we aren't, and don't want to be. If OSM plays an important part in your map, then credit us properly. There are many maps out there which would be useless if you took away the OSM part, and nonetheless they are adorned (on-map) with the names of those who made the tiles and those who bought them for embedding in their web site, with OSM being relegated to one click away - in order not to dilute the brand building of those who rely on our data to make a map in the first place. I don't think that's acceptable. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Corine Land Cover?
Dear all, The Wiki currently states that import of Corine Land Cover data into OSM is ok: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Corine_Land_Cover The source says Unless otherwise indicated, re-use of content on the EEA website for commercial or non-commercial purposes is permitted free of charge, provided that the source is acknowledged. Doesn't the last part (acknowledment) make the data incompatible with OSM? Users of Produced Works from OSM do not acknowledge EEA. Thank you for your opinions, pmsg ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Corine Land Cover?
2014/1/13 pmsg pmsg2...@yahoo.com Thank you for your opinions, pmsg legal issues aside my concern is that Corine Data is not suitable technically for OSM: the resolution is too low and not compatible with the rest of our data. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
On 13.01.2014 18:06, Frederik Ramm wrote: Jonathan, On 13.01.2014 13:17, Jonathan Harley wrote: What would happen if every data source started mandating that our attribution must be in the corner? The thing is that for us, for OpenStreetMap, the attribution is our main remuneration. We give our data away for free but in return, we expect to get at least a little bit of exposure, a little help in building our brand to borrow some marketing speak. Our own legal FAQ published at http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License says: In other words, you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same prominence as would be expected by any other map supplier. I'm reading it as it's fine to put OSM credits on a credits page if all credits are there. As long as other map suppliers like Google and Bing are happy by being only credited on a separate page, we're happy as well to be on the same page. What's not OK would be showing the Google credits in the corner and hide OSM somewhere behind a link. If this is not what this paragraph intended to state, please write it in a way which is easier to understand by non native speakers. As there is a similar looking page in out wiki which is linked from the very prominently placed copyright link on the main page it might be a good idea to revise that page or replace it completely by the (at least I assume) more authoritative page of the OSMF. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ I have placed a warning on that page and refer to the OSMF. Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
Hi, On 13.01.2014 22:52, Stephan Knauss wrote: As long as other map suppliers like Google and Bing are happy by being only credited on a separate page, Are they? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution Requirements
On 13.01.2014 23:41, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 13.01.2014 22:52, Stephan Knauss wrote: As long as other map suppliers like Google and Bing are happy by being only credited on a separate page, Are they? No idea. Do their terms allow to use the tiles directly without using their own JS-API which enforces the attribution in the corner? BTW: Someone mentioned Mapbox: Mapbox does not display attribution but Terms Feedback. At least if you follow their introduction on how to show a simple map. No word about attribution. https://www.mapbox.com/mapbox.js/example/v1.0.0/ a click leads to a copyright page mentioning OSM, no link to us but to ODbL. https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/ Showcase of Mapbox shows some of their customers. Foursquare: No attribution. A click away they mention OSM but not ODbL Pinterest: can't say without sign up, but based on screenshot attribution is About this map Hipmunk: no attribution. Clearly uses OSM data So having a correct attribution seems to be a quite hard task, even for a company so closely related to OSM as mapbox is. Probably they also did not read the legal page which recommends: If you are producing library code that offers OpenStreetMap data or tiles, you should make sure library users are aware of these terms. We strongly recommend that you display this credit by default when your library is used. ;) Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
