Re: [OSM-talk] CC0 in UK, CC0 in USA, sui generis database right and Wikidata
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 21:29:21 +0100 Simon Poole wrote: > Back to WD: as pointed about above, the issue is not that the WMF is > claiming that WD can be used on CC0 terms when it couldn't be, aka > laundering the data (quite to the contrary), it is that because we > would need to vet the provenance of the data (because it is obviously > from a large variety of non-declared sources) and that is a > non-starter. I attempted to describe situation at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata#Importing_data - can you look at it? Hopefully it will help to avoid rehashing this topic in future (and is rather closer to truth than https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata&oldid=1518440#Importing_data claiming "data may be copied from Wikidata without restriction." since 2014 - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata&diff=1053450&oldid=1045330 ) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC0 in UK, CC0 in USA, sui generis database right and Wikidata
Maybe I need to expand a bit, this was discussed early on when WD first became available, and is just a rehash of that. Essentially it boils down to - the WMF only licences ".. all of Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights and..." on CC0 terms (CC0 2.), in other words their rights - and doesn't warrant that the Work is free of third party rights (CC0 4.c) See https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode for the text. You will find similar provisions in many public licenses. In general when we are using third party data in OSM the onus is on us to do enough due diligence to determine the provenance of the data and if it is actually possible to use it on the terms presented. Depending on the source this may be reasonably easy to do with a high degree of confidence, in other cases it may not (an infamous case was part of the downfall of openaddresses.uk). Now while in principle the same applies to somebody using OSM data, we (OSM) invest a lot of effort in ensuring that any third party data can actually be distributed on our licence terms (and that includes shying away from anything that could cause issues). So while we are clearly not perfect, we are a lot lot better than essentially any other project in the same space. Back to WD: as pointed about above, the issue is not that the WMF is claiming that WD can be used on CC0 terms when it couldn't be, aka laundering the data (quite to the contrary), it is that because we would need to vet the provenance of the data (because it is obviously from a large variety of non-declared sources) and that is a non-starter. Simon Am 05.11.2017 um 20:36 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny: > On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 10:28:29 -0800 > Mark Wagner wrote: > >> Not an issue. The CC0 license explicitly calls out database rights as >> being released to the greatest extent possible. From the text of the >> license (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode) > What about cases where: > > 1) there is database from say UK, protected under database rights > 2) imported into Wikidata (AFAIK in compliance with USA laws) > 3) described by Wikidata as CC0 > > 1) coordinates are copied from for example Google Maps into Wikipedia > (it is accepted and encouraged on Wikipedia as AFAIK it is not against > USA law) > 2) imported into Wikidata (done on a massive scale, significant part > of Wikidata is mass scale copying of facts justified by "facts are not > copyrighted") > 3) described by Wikidata as CC0 > > I am quite sure that in both cases Wikidata contains data not usable in > EU/UK (and the same time it can be claimed that data is CC0 - at least > in USA it is true). > > Hopefully I am missing something but I am pretty sure that removing > database rights from collection of data is not as simple as "republish > database in USA and copy it back". > > If copying coordinate data from Google Maps is not OK than copying > Wikidata coordinates (that were copied from Wikipedia, sourced to > Google Maps) is also not OK. > > Note that examples above are not theoretical, especially tainted > geotagging is problematic. > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Dispute on wiki page Collaboration_with_Wikipedia
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 13:45:25 +0100 Michael Reichert wrote: > I think that the question if someone may copy > data from OSM/Wikipedia/Wikidata to Wikipedia or Wikidata should not > be discussed in the OSM wiki in full length. Especially Wikidata to Wikipedia and Wikipedia to Wikidata imports are completely offtopic for us. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC0 in UK, CC0 in USA, sui generis database right and Wikidata
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 10:28:29 -0800 Mark Wagner wrote: > Not an issue. The CC0 license explicitly calls out database rights as > being released to the greatest extent possible. From the text of the > license (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode) What about cases where: 1) there is database from say UK, protected under database rights 2) imported into Wikidata (AFAIK in compliance with USA laws) 3) described by Wikidata as CC0 1) coordinates are copied from for example Google Maps into Wikipedia (it is accepted and encouraged on Wikipedia as AFAIK it is not against USA law) 2) imported into Wikidata (done on a massive scale, significant part of Wikidata is mass scale copying of facts justified by "facts are not copyrighted") 3) described by Wikidata as CC0 I am quite sure that in both cases Wikidata contains data not usable in EU/UK (and the same time it can be claimed that data is CC0 - at least in USA it is true). Hopefully I am missing something but I am pretty sure that removing database rights from collection of data is not as simple as "republish database in USA and copy it back". If copying coordinate data from Google Maps is not OK than copying Wikidata coordinates (that were copied from Wikipedia, sourced to Google Maps) is also not OK. Note that examples above are not theoretical, especially tainted geotagging is problematic. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC0 in UK, CC0 in USA, sui generis database right and Wikidata
Am 05.11.2017 um 19:28 schrieb Mark Wagner: > > Not an issue. The CC0 license explicitly calls out database rights as > being released to the greatest extent possible. From the text of the > license (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode) > Yes, if it is the rights holder licensing on CC0 terms, Otherwise (case at hand) irrelevant. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] CC0 in UK, CC0 in USA, sui generis database right and Wikidata
On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 11:47:22 +0100 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > tl;dr > > It may be not OK to import data from Wikidata despite that this > database is CC0 (adding wikipedia/wikidata tags is still OK, but this > connection is mostly useless for adding data into OSM). > > It may be necessary to revert some imports of data from Wikidata > > > > Note: it is likely that some of what I write below is > misunderstanding, I am not a lawyer. I would be happy to discover > that I am wrong and that Wikidata is usable for us. > > In UK and EU putting effort into compiling a database grants a > property right called sui generis database right (very similar to > copyright). Not an issue. The CC0 license explicitly calls out database rights as being released to the greatest extent possible. From the text of the license (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode) > 1. Copyright and Related Rights include, but are not limited to, the > following: > vi. database rights (such as those arising under Directive 96/9/EC of > the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the > legal protection of databases, and under any national implementation > thereof, including any amended or successor version of such > directive)... > 2. Waiver. To the greatest extent permitted by, but not in > contravention of, applicable law, Affirmer hereby overtly, fully, > permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and > surrenders all of Affirmer's Copyright and Related Rights... -- Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Dispute on wiki page Collaboration_with_Wikipedia
Hi, I have a dispute with user Verdy_p on the sections "Importing geodata from Wikipedia" and "Importing geodata to Wikipedia" of the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_Wikipedia and would like to get comments from other members of the OSM community because edit wars are a waste of time. That's the state before I started editing yesterday: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_Wikipedia&oldid=1515024 That's the state after my changes: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_with_Wikipedia&oldid=1521333 I added two red warning Ambox templates to make clear that we do not copy data from Wikipedia (see Mateusz's posting on the legal situation of imports from Wikidata which is pretty similar https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2017-November/079492.html). In addition I shorted the section "Importing geodata to Wikipedia". I think that the section "Importing geodata to Wikipedia" is a mess and found it difficult to read. It contained lots of information which is not necessary for OSM. I think that the question if someone may copy data from OSM/Wikipedia/Wikidata to Wikipedia or Wikidata should not be discussed in the OSM wiki in full length. Instead, the wiki should link to a page at *.wikipedia.org or *.wikidata.org or the WMF wiki/website. If the opinion of the OSM Foundation differs, it should be mentioned or linked from the OSM wiki. Any further discussions whether two licenses are compatible and how relicensing of the content of Wikipedia works should be discussed outside the wiki (at a blog, mailinglist or personal website). It happened as I expected. Verdy_p restored the deleted sections. What is your opinion? Best regards Michael -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] CC0 in UK, CC0 in USA, sui generis database right and Wikidata
tl;dr It may be not OK to import data from Wikidata despite that this database is CC0 (adding wikipedia/wikidata tags is still OK, but this connection is mostly useless for adding data into OSM). It may be necessary to revert some imports of data from Wikidata Note: it is likely that some of what I write below is misunderstanding, I am not a lawyer. I would be happy to discover that I am wrong and that Wikidata is usable for us. In UK and EU putting effort into compiling a database grants a property right called sui generis database right (very similar to copyright). There is no protection like that in USA. A database may be protected by copyright when the selection or arrangement is original and creative. "One classic example of a database that is not protected by copyright is a telephone directory. Arranging names, addresses, and telephone numbers of subscribers in alphabetical order is not creative enough to meet even the low threshold required for copyright protection. This is true no matter how much work went into the creation of the telephone directory, or any other database. Copyright law protects the creative expression in a work, not the labor that went into its creation (or the author’s "sweat of the brow" as it’s often referred to in the law)." https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Database_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right So, it may be legal in USA to take database from EU and/or UK protected by sui generis database, merge it with other databases and publish it as CC0 database. In addition, Wikidata seems to rely heavily on assumption that individual facts are not protected by copyright so it is OK to copy individual facts to build a database ("non-copyrightable facts"). As I understand doing this is legal in USA the resulting CC0 work would not be free to use in EU and/or UK due to sui generis database right. AFAIK Wikidata is one of examples where this happens and unfortunately it is not OK to import data from this source - it is necessary to check that used data does not include data from sources protected by EU and/or UK property law (and there is no easy way to do that what makes Wikidata mostly useless for importing data) It also seems that unlike Wikimedia Commons that handles copyright issues very well there is no documentation explaining how Wikidata data may be used Wikimedia Commons good explanation of copyright issues: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules Wikidata no explanation of copyright issues that I was able to find (either I missed something of Wikidata community is not concerned about copyright and other property laws): https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Copyright https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Project_chat&oldid=576665752#Wikidata:Copyright_rules_.28AKA_-_is_Wikidata_CC0_in_Europe.3F.29 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk