On 6 Nov 2008, at 19:37, Eric Wolf wrote: > They do attribute OSM at the bottom of the page when they talk about > Baghdad. Of course, they sort of have to because OSM has the best > digital map of Baghdad on the planet.
So my personal definition in this context is to put the text on top of the map, like what's demanded by our commercial friends. I think that is respectful to the community IMHO but lets give the flickr guys time to respond, they're nice guys and it's surely just a little oversight or lack of clarity on OSM or my part. > Aren't these polygons just vast derivative works of either OSM or > TeleAtlas/NavTeq data? All those geocoded photos that were just placed > on a map... derive the places from the map, right? Then if you derive > the polygons from that set of points.. the polygons are just derived > from the map. I thought those guys dont like you deriving polygonal > datasets without paying them extra beer tokens? > > You could argue at all of the points owe beer tokens to the US > Military for flying the GPS birds. No... the federal government can't claim copyright on anything it produces and you can't copyright a fact. But we're straying in to horrible IANAL territory here :) > So I think the end result is that, unless someone managed to geotag > a photo with a non-real "fact", there can be no licensing issue. And > unlike some copyleft schemes, derivative works utilizing what can be > assumed "factual" in the source work would be considered original. > So the geolocations derived from copyrighted works presented as > databases of "facts" would be considered facts. And creating > polygons based on those facts would not be impacted by the original > copyright. Um no.. so a collection of those derived points is no longer a fact, it's a collection of facts which is covered by either sweat of the brow or database directive. When I last spoke to a copyright lawyer about this, he was pretty clear that if I was to derive a point on a map that was okay but deriving the two endpoints of straight street and then by logic deriving the street vector... that was not cool. By a long way. Then deriving polygons and more vectors was even less cool. > What would be REALLY cool is if someone mocked up photos of some of > the fake streets in the TeleAtlas data, posted them to Flickr and > geotagged them as "photos of this fake place". No what would be really cool is if someone set up letsinfringethefrickingmap.com with subdomains points.letsinfringethefrickingmap.com and vector.letsinfringethefrickingmap.com and so on. Each one would start by inviting the public to derive vast sets of points, vectors and polygons from Google, Yahoo and MSFT maps. You wont get a cease and desist for allowing individuals to derive a single point I suspect. But you will for allowing a crowd to derive an entire street network from a map dataset. You just have to fill in about 20-30 use cases in between as sub-domains. So allow people to derive street intersection points but not the streets... that kind of thing. Then just sit and wait for the cease and desist letters to come in, and you can 'map' out what they feel is legal and what isn't, since they're all so don't-wake-the-sleeping-giant on this and won't actually tell you clearly. You then can cross off the use cases that they don't like. Send a long personal email to everyone you know at the big three so they can't claim to be unaware of the existence of the sites. > Of course, I'm also one of the first paleo-geos arguing for the > openness of OSM. Talk about beautiful - an "map" almost entirely > devoid of centralized direction and purpose. Direction is one thing, purpose is entirely another. We have a clear purpose. Best Steve _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
