Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 03:43:17PM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > [cc:ed to legal-talk] > > Andy Allan wrote: > > > That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and > > haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they > > explicitly say otherwise. Which they have. They've authorized the images to be used for display, tracing, et. so long as they are given attribution. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt Web Developer ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
Hi, > Probably the biggest thing I've learned about copyright since getting > involved with OSM is how easy it is to overstate your rights as > copyright holder. Most do it because they don't know better. (Some don't even write the name "Microsoft" in a public article because tehy somehow think that they might need permission for that.) Some also do it maliciously (Scientology's stock method of silencing critics is to argue that their criticism is based on copyrighted material). I think the Science Commons guys have a rather enlightened viewpoint when they say (on http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases/): (quote) We recommend that database providers make it clear that only some elements of their database are protected by copyright (and subject to a Creative Commons license) and some elements are free to be used & reused outside of the license. As you know, Creative Commons and Science Commons work to promote freely available content and information. Our preference is that people do not overstate their copyright or other legal rights. Consequently, we adopt the position that facts are free and people should be educated so that they are aware of this. Database providers may want to think about including a statement where you include your Creative Commons Some Rights Reserved button that acknowledges that the database is only under a Creative Commons license to the extent that copyright protects the database and then give some examples of the elements in the database that are likely to be factual and excluded from the scope of copyright and the Creative Commons license. (unqoute) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
Steve Hill wrote: > Aren't OSM's GPS traces considered CC-BY-SA as well? I haven't seen > anything specifically licensing them, but they are in the OSM database, > accessible via the OSM API so I err on the side of assuming the > CC-BY-SA licence applies to them too. They're not explicitly licensed otherwise, but it's very, very debatable whether they cross the threshold to be copyrightable. [suggest follow-ups to legal-talk] cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Missing Openaerial map from Potlatch
[cc:ed to legal-talk] Andy Allan wrote: > That's pretty clear cut - i-Cubed own copyright over the imagery, and > haven't given anyone any rights to do stuff with them - unless they > explicitly say otherwise. "Public Domain" isn't viral for derived > works. Probably the biggest thing I've learned about copyright since getting involved with OSM is how easy it is to overstate your rights as copyright holder. That's not really too surprising for those of us from the UK, which has a very maximalist attitude to geodata copyright (or at least the OS does, and it shouts loudest): if you come from the States you'll have a different take on these things. I'm not even going to attempt to pronounce definitively on OAM, as I've not researched it particularly deeply. But I'd be reasonably certain that iCubed's colour correction in itself doesn't qualify as copyright-worthy for the purposes of tracing, so there's no issue in deriving from their flavour of Landsat. It's a bit like the NPE scans where I say "you can trace from these without restriction" - that's not me being nice (well, partly :) ), that's a recognition that the acts of scanning and rectification haven't created a new copyright over the geodata. (The "severable improvement" stuff may be relevant here. Maybe. Someone who knows remotely wtf they're talking about will be able to do better than me.) With the non-Landsat OAM images, the same argument can be had. Does rectification against Google create a new copyright? I can see an argument either way: a year ago I'd have said "yes it does", now I'm leaning a bit more towards "no it doesn't". But it really comes down to how cautious/paranoid you are, and OSM always takes the ultra-cautious route, which is why Steve's asked them to be removed for now. (It's reasonably easily settled - either get Google to give the ok, or rerectify against OSM. Better still, rerectify against OSM's GPS traces alone, thereby sidestepping potential CC-BY-SA issues.) Oh yeah, and then you have to think about contracts. Let's not even go there. Side-issue: the discussion at WhereCamp about "are Google and Microsoft killing the ecosystem?" looks really interesting - maybe someone who was there could post or blog about it. But, you know, a really great way for them to nurture the ecosystem - which is ultimately in their interests - would be if they could give definitive, permissive answers to things like this. Is anyone asking? Should we? (Even better still, they could do a Yahoo with their aerial imagery - yeah, I know, oink oink flap flap.) cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
