[OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
Hi all, I'm submitting here a question about the legality of keeping French long hiking routes called GR or GRP or PR in OSM. All these routes are very well known, have sign posts and references on the ground, e.g. the GR20 in Corsica (but many are still missing or very incomplete in OSM). See these examples in [1a] and [1b]. These routes have been created by the national hiking sport federation (FFRP, Fédération Française de Randonnée Pédestre). You can see them on the ground by the trail marks visible at regular intervals but also on most of the commercial maps in France. But we are facing two legal issues in France. The problems are not new but become more critical in my opinion (see below). First issue : it is the hiking route names themselves. For all of them created by the FFRP, the names are registered trademarks and cannot be used without permission (see question below). Second issue : the routes themselves are copyrighted. The list of trademarks is listed in the legal page of the FFRP web site([2]) : - (some are just used in books or commercial maps but) - GR® - GR Pays® - PR® - ... à pied - les environs de ... à pied - Sentiers des patrimoines are very common (especially the first 3 : GR, GR Pays (or GRP) and PR followed by a reference number. Question : the FFRP itself is an editor of hiking bookguides or has contracts with the IGN (the French state establishment for geographical information) for publishing commercial hiking maps, giving them royalties in return (an important income for the federation). So the FFRP is always actively contacting or bringing actions (sue) against private competitors or simple websites using their trademarks and routes on maps or book editors not paying any fees (see e.g. [3]). But some web sites seem to use them without fee ([4]). It seems that the FFRP is tolerating non-commercial use. Since 2009, 2 or 3 OSM contributors (including myself) tried to contact the FFRP to get the permission they request to use their copyrighted route names into OSM, wihout any reply until now. Earlier last year (Feb 2012), two members of the French local chapter met them physically and presented OSM. They showed some interest but repeated again and clearly that using the GR, PR, etc trademarks is not allowed without permission, a permission they didn't provide during that meeting (minutes available here [7]). They also didn't say anything about the future. it seems finally that they are looking for a replacement of their current map data provider (IGN) but they want to preserve their current commercial model. Note that the sign-posts (trail marks) are also protected (like a logo). After that meeting, we are several people thinking that we have the remove all references of the trademarks of the FFRP into OSM db, usually tagged in name or ref, either on ways or route relations or both. What's your opinion ? Second issue : it is maybe a more specific French issue here because the routes themselves can be copyrighted when they are considered as original work. A famous case confirmed this with the IGN (publishing the FFRP maps) sueing a guidebook editor [5] and confirmed by the highest court in France (1ere chambre de la cour de cassation de Paris, decision of 30 june 1998 [8]. I don't know if this is the same in other countries but a significant part of the OSM community in France would consider deleting the FFRP hiking routes completely (and not only the trademarks mentionned in Q1). Personnaly, I think that a route is not considered as an original work (or not enough original) in many jurisdictions. But still, keeping them in OSM is raising a legal insecurity in all DB extracts stored or distributed on French servers or applications. For these reasons, all FFRP hiking routes (represented in OSM by relations of type route, route=hiking) in France should be completely removed from the OSM database. What do you think ? Pieren [1a] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1107414 [1b] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2650826 [2] http://www.ffrandonnee.fr/_67/mentions-legales.aspx (in French) [3] http://www.balades-pyrenees.com/numero_55.htm (in French) [4] http://www.gr-infos.com/ [5] http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudiidTexte=JURITEXT06938477fastReqId=330410198fastPos=9 (in French) [6] http://hiking.lonvia.de/fr/?zoom=13lat=42.95532lon=-0.61968 [7] http://listes.openstreetmap.fr/wws/arc/ca/2012-02/msg0.html (in French, require ML registration first) [8] http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudiidTexte=JURITEXT07041272fastReqId=109256579fastPos=1 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
IANAL but just a thought... is it legal anyway to copyright route references? That is what the GRs appear to me to be to my eyes. Can the Department of Transport copyright the reference M25 in the uk and prohibit its use in all other publications? Nick -Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: - To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org From: Pieren pier...@gmail.com Date: 21/02/2013 12:24PM Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France Hi all, I'm submitting here a question about the legality of keeping French long hiking routes called GR or GRP or PR in OSM. All these routes are very well known, have sign posts and references on the ground, e.g. the GR20 in Corsica (but many are still missing or very incomplete in OSM). See these examples in [1a] and [1b]. These routes have been created by the national hiking sport federation (FFRP, Fédération Française de Randonnée Pédestre). You can see them on the ground by the trail marks visible at regular intervals but also on most of the commercial maps in France. But we are facing two legal issues in France. The problems are not new but become more critical in my opinion (see below). First issue : it is the hiking route names themselves. For all of them created by the FFRP, the names are registered trademarks and cannot be used without permission (see question below). Second issue : the routes themselves are copyrighted. The list of trademarks is listed in the legal page of the FFRP web site([2]) : - (some are just used in books or commercial maps but) - GR® - GR Pays® - PR® - ... à pied - les environs de ... à pied - Sentiers des patrimoines are very common (especially the first 3 : GR, GR Pays (or GRP) and PR followed by a reference number. Question : the FFRP itself is an editor of hiking bookguides or has contracts with the IGN (the French state establishment for geographical information) for publishing commercial hiking maps, giving them royalties in return (an important income for the federation). So the FFRP is always actively contacting or bringing actions (sue) against private competitors or simple websites using their trademarks and routes on maps or book editors not paying any fees (see e.g. [3]). But some web sites seem to use them without fee ([4]). It seems that the FFRP is tolerating non-commercial use. Since 2009, 2 or 3 OSM contributors (including myself) tried to contact the FFRP to get the permission they request to use their copyrighted route names into OSM, wihout any reply until now. Earlier last year (Feb 2012), two members of the French local chapter met them physically and presented OSM. They showed some interest but repeated again and clearly that using the GR, PR, etc trademarks is not allowed without permission, a permission they didn't provide during that meeting (minutes available here [7]). They also didn't say anything about the future. it seems finally that they are looking for a replacement of their current map data provider (IGN) but they want to preserve their current commercial model. Note that the sign-posts (trail marks) are also protected (like a logo). After that meeting, we are several people thinking that we have the remove all references of the trademarks of the FFRP into OSM db, usually tagged in name or ref, either on ways or route relations or both. What's your opinion ? Second issue : it is maybe a more specific French issue here because the routes themselves can be copyrighted when they are considered as original work. A famous case confirmed this with the IGN (publishing the FFRP maps) sueing a guidebook editor [5] and confirmed by the highest court in France (1ere chambre de la cour de cassation de Paris, decision of 30 june 1998 [8]. I don't know if this is the same in other countries but a significant part of the OSM community in France would consider deleting the FFRP hiking routes completely (and not only the trademarks mentionned in Q1). Personnaly, I think that a route is not considered as an original work (or not enough original) in many jurisdictions. But still, keeping them in OSM is raising a legal insecurity in all DB extracts stored or distributed on French servers or applications. For these reasons, all FFRP hiking routes (represented in OSM by relations of type route, route=hiking) in France should be completely removed from the OSM database. What do you think ? Pieren [1a] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1107414 [1b] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2650826 [2] http://www.ffrandonnee.fr/_67/mentions-legales.aspx (in French) [3] http://www.balades-pyrenees.com/numero_55.htm (in French) [4] http://www.gr-infos.com/ [5] http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriJudi.do?oldAction=rechJuriJudiidTexte=JURITEXT06938477fastReqId=330410198fastPos=9 (in French) [6] http://hiking.lonvia.de/fr/?zoom=13lat=42.95532lon=-0.61968 [7] http://listes.openstreetmap.fr/wws/arc/ca/2012-02/msg0.html (in French, require ML registration first) [8]
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
From: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com] Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France Hi all, I'm submitting here a question about the legality of keeping French long hiking routes called GR or GRP or PR in OSM. All these routes are very well known, have sign posts and references on the ground, e.g. the GR20 in Corsica (but many are still missing or very incomplete in OSM). See these examples in [1a] and [1b]. These routes have been created by the national hiking sport federation (FFRP, Fédération Française de Randonnée Pédestre). You can see them on the ground by the trail marks visible at regular intervals but also on most of the commercial maps in France. But we are facing two legal issues in France. The problems are not new but become more critical in my opinion (see below). First issue : it is the hiking route names themselves. For all of them created by the FFRP, the names are registered trademarks and cannot be used without permission (see question below). I cannot see that indicating that there are signs with a particular text on the ground is infringing their trademark. I'd expect most name=* values on POIs in OSM to be a trademark (although not necessarily registered). I've tagged Coca-Cola bottling centers, Starbucks, McDonalds and many more objects with trademarked names. If the mapping is accurate then the trademarked name is being used accurately and there's no issue. If I started tagging every coffee shop as a Starbucks regardless of ownership then I'd be diluting their trademark and it'd be an issue. Similarly, their trademark would stop someone from creating another hiking route with the same name, but would not stop someone from saying that they were heading to hike the GR20 if that's in fact what they were planning to do. Second issue : it is maybe a more specific French issue here because the routes themselves can be copyrighted when they are considered as original work. A famous case confirmed this with the IGN (publishing the FFRP maps) sueing a guidebook editor [5] and confirmed by the highest court in France (1ere chambre de la cour de cassation de Paris, decision of 30 june 1998 [8]. I don't know if this is the same in other countries but a significant part of the OSM community in France would consider deleting the FFRP hiking routes completely (and not only the trademarks mentionned in Q1). If the facts on the ground are covered by copyright I cannot see how a hiking network is different than a road network or a cycle network. Accepting this would require removing all roads in new suburbs and developments because they were copyrighted, not just these hiking routes. I also wonder if the guidebook copied FFRP maps or sent people out with GPSes. Another subtle point is we don't map what FFRP says is the route, we map what is marked on the ground. Personnaly, I think that a route is not considered as an original work (or not enough original) in many jurisdictions. But still, keeping them in OSM is raising a legal insecurity in all DB extracts stored or distributed on French servers or applications. For these reasons, all FFRP hiking routes (represented in OSM by relations of type route, route=hiking) in France should be completely removed from the OSM database. What do you think ? In some countries publishing maps requires a permit, but if someone deleted all the data in those countries I'm sure we'd regard it as vandalism. Other countries (e.g. China) forbid maps contrary to official ones, but when people start edit wars over disputed areas claimed by those countries what is regarded as important is the ground truth, not what the laws of that country allow to be published. I don't see that a French court's judgment should determine what goes in OSM, any more than a Chinese court. Even if the French court believes they have jurisdiction, they'd have to get any judgment domesticated by a British court. To accept the French judgment would gut OSM because it would apply to every hiking or road network in France, or for that matter, outside of France. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: I cannot see that indicating that there are signs with a particular text on the ground is infringing their trademark. I'd expect most name=* values on POIs in OSM to be a trademark (although not necessarily registered). I've tagged Coca-Cola bottling centers, Starbucks, McDonalds and many more objects with trademarked names. If the mapping is accurate then the trademarked name is being used accurately and there's no issue. If I started tagging every coffee shop as a Starbucks regardless of ownership then I'd be diluting their trademark and it'd be an issue. Similarly, their trademark would stop someone from creating another hiking route with the same name, but would not stop someone from saying that they were heading to hike the GR20 if that's in fact what they were planning to do. Again, you have to understand that this sport organization (FFRP) is publishing hiking bookguides and maps of their routes. It is their main income (plus some subsidies from the state). The FFRP made this trademark and copyright to protect them against commercial competitors on their market : their hiking routes. If the facts on the ground are covered by copyright I cannot see how a hiking network is different than a road network or a cycle network. Perhaps because a road network is in the public domaine. Here we speak about a copyrighted route. we map what is marked on the ground. This point has been long discussed on our local list. What you see on the ground is the trail markers. One problem is that the markers are also copyrighted (the colours and shapes) like a logo. Of course, if you put the McDonalds logo on OSM maps, McDo will be happy for the free ads and maps are not their business. But it might be different if you put an OS or USGS logo on your OSM maps. Second problem is that the trail markers are present along the route at short intervals. Even if we map only the marks, it will be easy to rebuild the whole route by extrapolation. I don't see that a French court's judgment should determine what goes in OSM, any more than a Chinese court. Even if the French court believes they have jurisdiction, they'd have to get any judgment domesticated by a British court. To accept the French judgment would gut OSM because it would apply to every hiking or road network in France, or for that matter, outside of France. Would you say the same if the court is in US or Canada ? Of course, we can build our mirror of the planet dump files and filter the compromised data. But is is the policy of OSM to ignore copyrights infringements outside UK ? Pieren ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
[reordered to place copyright matters together] From: Pieren [mailto:pier...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:26 AM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France Again, you have to understand that this sport organization (FFRP) is publishing hiking bookguides and maps of their routes. It is their main income (plus some subsidies from the state). The FFRP made this trademark and copyright to protect them against commercial competitors on their market : their hiking routes. Oh, I understand why they don't want competition. I'm sure any map publisher would be happy with less competition. we map what is marked on the ground. This point has been long discussed on our local list. What you see on the ground is the trail markers. One problem is that the markers are also copyrighted (the colours and shapes) like a logo. Of course, if you put the McDonalds logo on OSM maps, McDo will be happy for the free ads and maps are not their business. But it might be different if you put an OS or USGS logo on your OSM maps. Second problem is that the trail markers are present along the route at short intervals. Even if we map only the marks, it will be easy to rebuild the whole route by extrapolation. The copyright of the markers isn't really relevant, we're discussing text like GR20 which would not be protected by copyright anywhere that I'm aware of. Trademark yes, but not copyright. The problem with any trademark arguments is if we're accurate, we're describing If the facts on the ground are covered by copyright I cannot see how a hiking network is different than a road network or a cycle network. Perhaps because a road network is in the public domaine. Here we speak about a copyrighted route. What makes it in the public domain as opposed to this route? Both networks were designed. I don't see that a French court's judgment should determine what goes in OSM, any more than a Chinese court. Even if the French court believes they have jurisdiction, they'd have to get any judgment domesticated by a British court. To accept the French judgment would gut OSM because it would apply to every hiking or road network in France, or for that matter, outside of France. Would you say the same if the court is in US or Canada ? Of course, we can build our mirror of the planet dump files and filter the compromised data. *Any* court judgment would need to be domesticated to be able to be enforced against the OSMF. We're talking about a case where if it were the same facts elsewhere it would be legal. Should the OSMF remove all landuse=military from Russia because mapping military facilities may not be legal there? If it were a local case that impacted me, I'd have to consider what I map and what I distribute in light of the case, but that's about all I can say about a vague hypothetical case. But is is the policy of OSM to ignore copyrights infringements outside UK ? My points were not about copyright infringements outside the UK. I was talking about data that would not infringe copyright under UK law. The Wikimedia Foundation uses US law for determining fair use and out of copyright status and hosts content where it would be infringing copyright under foreign law. Also, I think you mean the OSMF, not OSM, as it's the OSMF that would receive any takedown notices or lawsuits. If these did need to be removed as copyright violations, they would need to be redacted and I imagine the legals question would end up at the LWG, either directly or via the DWG. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
This point has been long discussed on our local list. What you see on the ground is the trail markers. One problem is that the markers are also copyrighted (the colours and shapes) like a logo. Of course, if you put the McDonalds logo on OSM maps, McDo will be happy for the free ads and maps are not their business. MacDo may not be happy because you put on the same map all fast-food networks. Or because on your smart-phone app Find your MacDo, you allowed user to share (bad) comments. Using brand/logo is alway legally dangerous. If we consider that everything that the use may be dangerous should be removed from OSM, then all brands everywhere in the world must be removed. Indeed, I consider that this the way we are using it that is dangerous i.e. this is the responsibility of the guy doing the extract from OSM and organizing the data that is involved. But it might be different if you put an OS or USGS logo on your OSM maps. I don't see any problem if you put USGS logo on USGS offices/shops. Of course, you will get in trouble if you put a big USGS logo on the cover of your map. Again, this is the way you are using it that is critical. Éric ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
Hello all! I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not. I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc we need to store places and information about them. The information we normally store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to different languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer exists. In the current system, metadata about a place is constructed by giving it a name, known variations of the name, which country it is in (problematic as it might change over the time) and translation of the name. As an OSM user and contributor my first reaction was, we can make the places more precise and avoid the changing countries problem by using coordinates for places, and also present them in a better way. As the applications data should be readable for a long time (forever), will we be storing all metadata together with the digitalized objects. We will over the lifetime of the application construct several thousand places. We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works have all kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. The resulting system will be accessible for anyone from the Internet, subsections might have restricted access. 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the coordinates they clicked on as part of the metadata for a place in our application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map to for example London and then click somewhere in London. 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? Again, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as London. 3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any other data from the map. 4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database? I would love for us to use OSM in our application, but I have been unable to find out if we can use it for the four usecases presented above. with hope of a speedy answer /Olov ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License question, user clicking on map
I think all of these use cases should be ok and we should adjust the community guide lines to clarify that ODbL's share alike clause shouldn't kick in here. On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Olov McKie o...@mckie.se wrote: Hello all! I have a few usecases for OSM where I do not know if I can use it or not. I work for a library where we are building a new version of an application to handle all sort of collections, for example books, letters, images, music sheets, etc. The application will store metadata and digitalized versions of the works. To know where an item was created, a letter sent from / to, etc we need to store places and information about them. The information we normally store about a place is name, alternative names, names translated to different languages, etc. A place might be a historic one that no longer exists. In the current system, metadata about a place is constructed by giving it a name, known variations of the name, which country it is in (problematic as it might change over the time) and translation of the name. As an OSM user and contributor my first reaction was, we can make the places more precise and avoid the changing countries problem by using coordinates for places, and also present them in a better way. As the applications data should be readable for a long time (forever), will we be storing all metadata together with the digitalized objects. We will over the lifetime of the application construct several thousand places. We will not be able to share the complete db under the ODbL as the works have all kinds of licenses that are incompatible with the ODbL. The resulting system will be accessible for anyone from the Internet, subsections might have restricted access. 1. If we present an OSM map to the user let them click on the map and use the coordinates they clicked on as part of the metadata for a place in our application, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? To clarify, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on, they would by themselves navigate the map to for example London and then click somewhere in London. 2. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and let the user click on the map and use the coordinates the user clicks on, will the resulting database be considered a derived database? Again, we would not extract any information from the map, beside the coordinates that the user clicked on. Presenting the markers would of course help the user find a place, such as London. 3. If we use the overpass API to find possible matches for a placename entered by a user, present the possible matches with markers on a map and if we have more then one result ask the user to fill in more details about the place such as, country, region, close to major city, local name, etc until overpass only returns on result, would the user entered data be considered a derived database? To clarify, in this case would we not extract the coordinates or any other data from the map. 4. If we present several places (all data about the place including coordinates originates from other sources than OSM) on an OSM map to help find duplicates, and then lets the user click on two places marked on the map, to merge them into one, would the resulting database be considered a derived database? I would love for us to use OSM in our application, but I have been unable to find out if we can use it for the four usecases presented above. with hope of a speedy answer /Olov ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Question about copyrighted hiking routes in France
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: First issue : it is the hiking route names themselves. For all of them created by the FFRP, the names are registered trademarks and cannot be used without permission (see question below). Second issue : the routes themselves are copyrighted. Hi Pieren, I am also not a lawyer, but here's my two cents. First, it would be really said if we lost the GR routes. I recently hiked about half of the GR20, using the OSM route of course. So I don't think we should give up easily - they're so valuable. On the trademark front, it should be easy to establish if they have a genuine complaint. If they do, I think we can change the names without losing too much - even if had to call them French hiking route 20 or something. Second issue : it is maybe a more specific French issue here because the routes themselves can be copyrighted when they are considered as original work. A famous case confirmed this with the IGN (publishing the FFRP maps) sueing a guidebook editor [5] and confirmed by the highest court in France (1ere chambre de la cour de cassation de Paris, decision of 30 june 1998 [8]. I don't know if this is the same in other countries but a significant part of the OSM community in France would consider deleting the FFRP hiking routes completely (and not only the trademarks mentionned in Q1). On what basis do they claim ownership of the routes, exactly? As I understand it, many of these routes link up lots of little trails that had been around for decades. How did copyright get transferred from the people who created the trails to the FFRP? Or do they claim ownership only over new sections? Or only over a particular representation? Are they aware that all the data has been created independently, by surveying the trail - not by actually copying their data? I wonder where the exact line would be drawn - what if we didn't have routes, but just the trails marked. But then, how would you label such a trail - often they have no other name other than the GR number, plus the name of the next landmark. Presumably someone has sought French legal advice? What was it? Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
