The LWG has been working with council on similar infringement cases. I suggest this gets added.
As an aside, this is exactly what happened to some of my work a few years ago. On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Phil Monger wrote: > So I was looking through some cycle books, as you do, when I came across this > one (i've hosted the images 3rd party and avoided HTML, if they don't work > let me know. I had to snap them on the iPhone - so sorry for the lack of a > close focus!!) : > > http://img249.imageshack.us/i/img0002tw.jpg/ > > It's a new cycle book for London, with routes, etc. Pretty standard fare. The > problem? All the maps inside are blatant OSM copies (Mapnik, I assume) with > route overlays posted. Now this wouldn't be a problem, obviously, except they > are way WAY outside of CC-BY-SA. > > Firstly, they claim copyright over the whole book and 'every part therein.' > To add insult to creative-commons injury they claim copyright over the > mapping: > > http://img193.imageshack.us/i/img0003oz.jpg/ > > It's a little hard to make out (sorry again) but reads "Copyright 2010 in > maps, New Holland Publishers Ltd..." then later states "all rights reserved. > No part of this publication may be reproduced.." > > You can read this page on the Amazon product page - > http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Cycling-Guide-Exploring-Capital/dp/1847735460 > - unfortunately none of the OSM maps pop up on that preview, at least not for > me. For reference, there are maps for *each of the 30 routes* inside. All OSM > except for some overview mapping which looks donated from the council. This > is the best shot I could get of the OSM mapping being used : > > http://img707.imageshack.us/i/img0005na.jpg/ > > None of the maps have *any* accreditation back to OSM on them. The only place > OSM is mentioned it on the very last page, very last line, where it says "All > other maps by Steve Dew using base maps by OpenStreetMap" : > > http://img412.imageshack.us/i/img0004qh.jpg/ > > No mention of CC, no logo, no link, ect. > > Ironically, it doesn't list OSM or OCM as "useful resources" for cyclists ... > I wonder why? > > So, in summary: > > - No attribution > - Is a derived work released under Copyright > > I assume this hasn't been cleared and 'waived' by someone at OSM? Where can > we go from here? > > I have an urge to go start flogging scanned copies and claim .. "but surely > as a derivative work this is also a work released under CC-BY-SA?" if that's > what it takes to stop corporations like New Holland from pilfering work like > this. > > ;) > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk have fun, Steve Coast / stevecoast.com _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
