Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:57:19PM +1000, John Smith wrote: I don't think intent alone is enough, if the intent is to limit derivative copies you need to stipulate that in your license to B, otherwise you know that C is able to do what ever he likes based on the license between B and C. I don't know any such thing as I'm not a lawyer - are you? If so, if would be great if you could state that as formal advice, if not, it would be great if you could get legal advice to that effect. s ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 21 June 2011 05:46, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time. And here's Nick's interpretation: Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. OpenStreetMap.org has had Contributor Terms for at least the last 5 years. See the CTs history here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/History / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
[Sorry to quote so much context - please do scroll down!) On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I think the question being asked arises from the following hypothetical chain of events: 1/ Person A has a database that he licenses under ODbL. 2/ Person B takes the database and creates a produced work [...] and also licenses the produced work (eg map tiles) under either (i) PD/CC0 or (ii) CC-By. 3/ Person C takes the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By, and creates a derivative work from it by 'reverse engineering' the map tiles to recover (some of) the data in the original database. [...] I think it's worth re-iterating the point made earlier: If Person A has publically expressed their desire that the database and copies of it remain under ODbL, and Person C is aware of this, then Person C needs to get their own legal advice. Person A, if asked about the possible loophole, should just repeat that their intention is that copies of the database should only be available under ODbL. Person A also should do as much as they can to make sure any potential Person C is aware of the intention. In the case of OSM, it helps that it's the largest open map data project - it's likely anyone thinking of creating a map data from tiles they somehow got hold of from Person B would investigate and discover OSM exists. s ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 21 June 2011 23:31, Stephen Gower socks-openstreetmap@earth.li wrote: [Sorry to quote so much context - please do scroll down!) On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I think the question being asked arises from the following hypothetical chain of events: 1/ Person A has a database that he licenses under ODbL. 2/ Person B takes the database and creates a produced work [...] and also licenses the produced work (eg map tiles) under either (i) PD/CC0 or (ii) CC-By. 3/ Person C takes the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By, and creates a derivative work from it by 'reverse engineering' the map tiles to recover (some of) the data in the original database. [...] I think it's worth re-iterating the point made earlier: If Person A has publically expressed their desire that the database and copies of it remain under ODbL, and Person C is aware of this, then Person C needs to get their own legal advice. Person A, if asked about the possible loophole, should just repeat that their intention is that copies of the database should only be available under ODbL. Person A also should do as much as they can to make sure any potential Person C is aware of the intention. In the case of OSM, it helps that it's the largest open map data project - it's likely anyone thinking of creating a map data from tiles they somehow got hold of from Person B would investigate and discover OSM exists. I don't think intent alone is enough, if the intent is to limit derivative copies you need to stipulate that in your license to B, otherwise you know that C is able to do what ever he likes based on the license between B and C. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:57 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote: Person A also should do as much as they can to make sure any potential Person C is aware of the intention. In the case of OSM, it helps that it's the largest open map data project - it's likely anyone thinking of creating a map data from tiles they somehow got hold of from Person B would investigate and discover OSM exists. I don't think intent alone is enough, if the intent is to limit derivative copies you need to stipulate that in your license to B, otherwise you know that C is able to do what ever he likes based on the license between B and C. I wanted to stay out of this endless discussion, but let me point out the simple fact that copyleft is designed to solve this problem. When you get a copy of the data, you get the intended license and done need a contract. It is pretty simple and it has been tested in court via the gpl. mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Hang on, here's Nearmap's statement: All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time. And here's Nick's interpretation: Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. They're completely opposite. It's not just looking for problems. If Nearmap had wanted those contributions to be relicensable under some future licence, they would have said so. They said the opposite: under the terms in place...at the relevant time. *Not* under any licence [the OSMF] chooses at any time. If lawyers drafted the statement, they meant what they said. At best, I'm interpreting it as existing contributions are licensed under CC-BY-SA and/or ODbL, and that's ok. If you want to change the licence again in the future, we'll talk. I mean, Nearmap have never said they have a problem with ODbL, nor do they have a problem with future relicensing *per se*. They have a problem with allowing unspecified future licensing without power of veto. So...I'm looking at this as a sort of stay of execution. The data can stay in OSM until the licence changes again, which could be a few years, it could be a long time. Who knows what will happen then, or what it will mean if Nearmap is no longer around for some reason. Remember we're talking about a terms of use issue, not a licensing issue. Steve On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:01 AM, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: So those guys put out a legal statement and an employee even gave you his interpretation on this list, which you can cite in court if you want. I think you're pretty solid and it feels like people are just looking for problems no matter what is done or said. :-( Steve stevecoast.com On Jun 16, 2011, at 0:44, Nick Hocking nick.hock...@gmail.com wrote: My understanding is that Nearmap wish all contributions to OSM, by any mapper who has agreed to the CT, derived from their imagery (before the 17th June 2011) to be able to be relicenced by OSMF under any licence it (OSMF) chooses at any time. However I also can't see exactly how the published statement meets this wish. Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ Talk-au mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
+1 anyway I just wanted to make clear that our current data is submitted under CC-BY-SA (at least our community members declares so) but there is absolutely no prove that the data submitted can be CC-BY-SA. I just want to say that copyright is not just something you can declare or deny in ordinary mapmaking, let alone once is becomes a database and/or mixed with times. The discussions on this list become theoretically beyond a level an ordinary lawyer can understand, let-alone us. Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Verzonden: zondag 19 juni 2011 6:59 Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap On 19 June 2011 03:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: What if Betty changes country and decides to reside in France -before- publicating her tiles on a server located in the Bahama's and claiming CC0 ;) It's silly because some people injected a silly argument into it, but it would seem that ODBL opens up some pretty big loop holes that CC-by-SA doesn't, and we've been told time after time about how much better it is, CC-by-SA is working just fine, but ODBL won't. ___ 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] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 19:55, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I just wanted to make clear that our current data is submitted under CC-BY-SA (at least our community members declares so) but there is absolutely no prove that the data submitted can be CC-BY-SA. Well the assumption is that the data can be licensed as CC0/PD or CC-by-SA etc, but your statements are more against the CT than relevant to ODBL... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 10:22, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: OK. So what I mean by some of the questions don't make sense is exactly this. I'm afraid you and lots of others who ask questions use a lot of short-hand (lawyers sometimes do this too). The problem is then I don't know what assumptions are built into that short-hand and what exactly you are trying to say. I think the question being asked arises from the following hypothetical chain of events: 1/ Person A has a database that he licenses under ODbL. 2/ Person B takes the database and creates a produced work from a derivative database. He complies with ODbL by releasing the derivative database under ODbL, and also licenses the produced work (eg map tiles) under either (i) PD/CC0 or (ii) CC-By. 3/ Person C takes the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By, and creates a derivative work from it by 'reverse engineering' the map tiles to recover (some of) the data in the original database. Since the produced work was licensed to him under (i) PD/CC0 or (ii) CC-By, he then is able to release the database under PD/CC0 or CC-By respectively. Now looking at this process, it seems to me that there are three possibilities: 1/ Everyone has fully met all their licensing obligations / agreements, and so this represents a loop-hole in ODbL; or 2/ Person B didn't actually have the ability to release the produced work under either PD/CC0 or CC-By, presumably because of the database rights contained in the data within them or something arising from the ODbL contract; or 3/ It's possible for some rights to be contained in a PD/CC0 or CC-By image that aren't under the PD/CC0 or CC-By license, thus limiting what you can do with the image in terms of reverse engineering the data behind it. Hence Person C is unable to release the results of the reverse engineering in the way suggested, despite the license on the image seeming to allow them to do this. Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics, I'm guessing the answer is some sort of combination of 2 and 3; along the lines that person B needs to specify that while the images are under the license specified, the underlying data isn't. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics, I'm guessing the answer is some sort of combination of 2 and 3; along the lines that person B needs to specify that while the images are under the license specified, the underlying data isn't. You are correct up until the assumption is that person C doesn't have access to the original data, instead they are deriving data from the produced images. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 11:21, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 June 2011 20:16, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: Thinking of the example someone gave or the copyright in sound recordings being separate from the copyright in the music / lyrics, I'm guessing the answer is some sort of combination of 2 and 3; along the lines that person B needs to specify that while the images are under the license specified, the underlying data isn't. You are correct up until the assumption is that person C doesn't have access to the original data, instead they are deriving data from the produced images. While person C could indeed get access to the original data (which must be offered by B), in the hypothetical situation I envisaged, they choose not to do so. They obtain the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By without seeing the database it was produced from or agreeing to the ODbL. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html Since CC-by and CC-by-SA both require attribution than the CTs would have guarantee attribution, yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. So for the above statement to be true they'd have to enforce attribution on produced works at the very least. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 20:31, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: While person C could indeed get access to the original data (which must be offered by B), in the hypothetical situation I envisaged, they choose not to do so. They obtain the produced work under PD/CC0 or CC-By without seeing the database it was produced from or agreeing to the ODbL. Doesn't hosting/offering the DB only come into play if they make changes to the data? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html Since CC-by and CC-by-SA both require attribution than the CTs would have guarantee attribution, yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. So for the above statement to be true they'd have to enforce attribution on produced works at the very least. I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check for compatibility with the current license. But the current license is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay. But this is quite confusing, I'm not sure if Robert is right and Mike Collinson's e-mail makes it even more difficult to interpret the Contributor Terms becuase it seems to say: contributed data needs to be ODbL compatible but doesn't need to be strictly compatible with all the possible future free and open licenses But I see only two possible interpretations of the Contributor Terms: * contributed data needs to be compatible with the *current* license or * contributed data needs to be compatible with CC-By-SA, ODbL 1.0+DbCL and any future free and open license with no midway point. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 23:20, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check for compatibility with the current license. But the current license is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay. Since things seem to be going head first towards ODBL shouldn't that license also be considered when advising people about compatibility with the CT, otherwise it could be seen as very misleading and/or deceitful if they have full knowledge that it could mislead people. The ODBL and CT are being sold as a package deal, so that's how things should always be treated. with no midway point. Even with the current wording in the CT there is no guarantee that future license changes would definitely remove any data not compatible, so there and then that should be a show stopper over compatibility, the CT simply isn't compatible with any CC license other than CC0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
I forgot to ask, do SVG files constitute a produced work? The kind OSM.org currently outputs as SVG maps. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 20 June 2011 00:53, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles, which don't offer attribution. The ODbL requires attribution of the database. The database can contain other attribution. Have you forgotten the PD tiles thread that you and I participated in on this list? Here's a reminder: The problem is I keep getting conflicting information and being told it's possible to put tiles under any license, including CC0/PD. So you are saying that CC-by, or equivalent license, is the minimum compatible with the ODBL? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 20 June 2011 00:55, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: If however on the other hand if someone created an SVG file specially for the purpose of extracted OSM data and tags, it would be extremely difficult for them to argue that is a produced work and not a database. That's assuming a single party acting on bad faith, 2 independent parties operating independently would be able to claim otherwise. There is a simple guideline on the wiki: (from 2009) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline In other words CC-by-SA protects data better than ODBL. No. See above. You are assuming that a single party or both parties involved are operating under bad faith, in all likelihood there could be a range of places to source data from, even OSM.org for that matter, with a secondary party operating in the US. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
JohnSmitty wrote: As I said before, you can easily do this with copyright, use CC-by-ND instead of CC-by-SA, but if something is licensed as CC-by-SA it can legally be derived from as long as the resulting work is also CC-by-SA. What I am saying is that Creative Commons guidance appears to suggest that, in the case of music, you can license a recording under CC-by-SA without licensing the composition under CC-by-SA (and indeed it is well established in copyright law that composition and recording licensing are separate) . In other words, you have not licensed all of the intellectual property present in the recording under CC-by-SA, so people cannot distribute, say, the lyrics under CC-by-SA on the grounds that they derived them from a CC-by-SA recording. If my interpretation is right, why can you not licence an OSM rendering under CC-by-SA without licensing the underlying database under CC-by-SA? I am not saying I am 100% certain about this (as there is not the well established distinction that exists for music), but I would be interested to hear reasons why this does not work if the music example does. Cheers David -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6490172.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 19:22, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: Tiles are clearly *maps* and so protected as artistic works under article 2(1) of the Berne Convention and therefore (one hopes) in every country which is a signatory to Berne which includes the US and the EU. What you can do with tiles will depend on how OSMF chooses to licence the OSM. Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler with a solid example. OSM-F continues to distribute map tiles under a CC-by-SA license and for the purpose of this example doesn't have a terms and condition using their website. Someone from the US comes along and derives some data from the tiles OSM-F produces. That same someone then distributes the resulting data under a CC-by-SA license. At any point is anyone in breach of copyright? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
2011/6/18 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler with a solid example. OSM-F continues to distribute map tiles under a CC-by-SA license and for the purpose of this example doesn't have a terms and condition using their website. Someone from the US comes along and derives some data from the tiles OSM-F produces. That same someone then distributes the resulting data under a CC-by-SA license. At any point is anyone in breach of copyright? Where do they do all these acts? Jurisdiction may matter. In the UK reconstructing a substantial part of the database from the tiles would almost certainly be an extraction and so potentially infringing the database right unless licensed etc. I think quite likely an infringement of copyright in the database in the UK as well. Quite possibly not an infringement of copyright elsewhere. I simply don't know about that. Generally doing something indirectly via other works cannot be used to launder an infringement in the UK. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 19:48, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/6/18 John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com: Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler with a solid example. OSM-F continues to distribute map tiles under a CC-by-SA license and for the purpose of this example doesn't have a terms and condition using their website. Someone from the US comes along and derives some data from the tiles OSM-F produces. That same someone then distributes the resulting data under a CC-by-SA license. At any point is anyone in breach of copyright? Where do they do all these acts? Jurisdiction may matter. In the UK reconstructing a substantial part of the database from the tiles would almost certainly be an extraction and so potentially infringing the database right unless licensed etc. I think quite likely an infringement of copyright in the database in the UK as well. Quite possibly not an infringement of copyright elsewhere. I simply don't know about that. Generally doing something indirectly via other works cannot be used to launder an infringement in the UK. Well this is why I asked if the second party was in the US. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:39 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 19:22, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: Tiles are clearly *maps* and so protected as artistic works under article 2(1) of the Berne Convention and therefore (one hopes) in every country which is a signatory to Berne which includes the US and the EU. What you can do with tiles will depend on how OSMF chooses to licence the OSM. Well one assumption I'm making is that everyone is adhering to the license restrictions placed on them, perhaps this would be easiler with a solid example. OSM-F continues to distribute map tiles under a CC-by-SA license and for the purpose of this example doesn't have a terms and condition using their website. Someone from the US comes along and derives some data from the tiles OSM-F produces. That same someone then distributes the resulting data under a CC-by-SA license. At any point is anyone in breach of copyright? Is this similar?: Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or something. Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data. Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later contributes them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL. All fair here? How would it change if Betty were in USA as well? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Hi, Richard Weait wrote: Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or something. Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data. Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later contributes them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL. Duh. Does that mean I don't get to delete the Australian coastline in the end? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Is this similar?: Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or something. Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data. Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later contributes them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL. All fair here? How would it change if Betty were in USA as well? Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Is this similar?: Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or something. Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data. Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later contributes them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL. All fair here? How would it change if Betty were in USA as well? Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. If you are legally sure and prove that they were cc-by-sa in the first place. ;)) This copyright stuff for soft - ware (not software) is a can of worms that will kill the project in the end. This discussion is turning completely silly. What if Betty changes country and decides to reside in France -before- publicating her tiles on a server located in the Bahama's and claiming CC0 ;) Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Verzonden: zaterdag 18 juni 2011 12:36 Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap On 18 June 2011 20:26, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: Is this similar?: Andy, in Australia, contributes CC-By or CC-By-SA data to CC-By-SA OpenStreetMap. Perhaps the data is Australian boundaries or something. Betty, in UK, creates CC-By-SA tiles that include that boundary data. Chuck, in USA, creates vectors from those tiles and later contributes them to OSM under CC-By-SA and CT/ODbL. All fair here? How would it change if Betty were in USA as well? Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa. ___ 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] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 19 June 2011 03:40, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: What if Betty changes country and decides to reside in France -before- publicating her tiles on a server located in the Bahama's and claiming CC0 ;) It's silly because some people injected a silly argument into it, but it would seem that ODBL opens up some pretty big loop holes that CC-by-SA doesn't, and we've been told time after time about how much better it is, CC-by-SA is working just fine, but ODBL won't. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db. Not being I'm still finding it a bit hard to understand exactly what is meant by can remain in the OSM db. Is the following statement correct? Nearmap-derived contributions prior to June 17 were licensed CC-BY-SA*, and will remain part of the main, actively developed and distributed OSM database even when it changes to ODbL, and Nearmap is fine with that. However, they refuse to allow any contributions under the new Contributor Terms, because those call for unspecified future relicensing. Also, a question I should probably know the answer to: is ODbL considered compatible with CC-BY-SA? Can you relicense something that is CC-BY-SA as ODbL? (I guess the answer must be yes, but could someone confirm?) Steve * Or ODbL, depending on the contributor and time. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Hi, On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote: Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial. CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under? Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles. Tiles can be put under CC-BY-SA with no problem; in fact the main OSM tileserver is likely to do that. A database created by tracing from these tiles might however be subject to the limitations I have outlined in my previous email. Whether or not CC-BY-SA makes such a distinction or not is not relevant. I tried to explain this by referring to the related case of patents (here, too, CC-BY-SA makes no distinction), but I understand it is a difficult concept to grasp. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote: Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial. CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under? Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles. Tiles can be put under CC-BY-SA with no problem; in fact the main OSM tileserver is likely to do that. A database created by tracing from these tiles might however be subject to the limitations I have outlined in my previous email. Whether or not CC-BY-SA makes such a distinction or not is not relevant. I tried to explain this by referring to the related case of patents (here, too, CC-BY-SA makes no distinction), but I understand it is a difficult concept to grasp. Database restrictions don't concern me, as there is no DB directives or similar in most of the world, and I don't find any of this difficult to grasp, but I do keep getting conflicting answers from those promoting the new license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity. Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is further restrictions you would have to use something other than cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract. If you are given a CC-BY-SA licensed work, they you are limited by by the CC-BY-SA license on the copyrightable aspects only. Other aspects like trademarks or patents that are inherent in the work are already limited irrespective of the CC-BY-SA license. The person who gave you the CC-BY-SA licensed work does not have to enforce you to follow trademark or patent restrictions, by contract or another copyright license. I'm aware of the patent/trademark issues, I wish Frederik hadn't brought this up as it only serves to side track things, because unless he plans to constantly patent tiles we can ignore that side of things completely. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the derived database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the EU you are not in trouble, just if. Simon Am 17.06.2011 16:54, schrieb John Smith: .. This could be hard, especially since OSM-F isn't complying with Chinese law, so why would others comply with EU law unless they were in the EU? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 01:10, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Because you want to sell/offer s service in the EU, enter one of the countries and numerous other reasons. As long as you don't make the derived database available or publish the contents in some form -in- the EU you are not in trouble, just if. Depending how much China wants to crack down, any OSM-F member could probably be thrown in a Chinese jail for failure to comply with Chinese laws, what's your point? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM, which would prevent their uses. News to me. Do you have a pointer? Some secondary sources (i.e. not license text), it looks like it may apply only to some ports of version 3 and is considered for version 4, but there's something even in version 2 ports: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html For example the pdf says (about european ports): In other words, the sui generis license should not extend the restrictions of the CC license conditions to things (facts, ideas, information, etc.) not protected by copyright. But also says: 2. Unconditional waiver of the of the sui generis database rights under the national law implementing the European Database Directive at the end of section 3 of the licenses: Where the licensor is the owner of the sui generis database rights under the national law implementing the European Database Directive, the licensor will waive this right. and the person making the tiles is probably not the owner (but in case of tiles.openstreetmap.org it might be). Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 17 June 2011 17:17, andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 June 2011 16:48, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM, which would prevent their uses. News to me. Do you have a pointer? Some secondary sources (i.e. not license text), it looks like it may apply only to some ports of version 3 and is considered for version 4, but there's something even in version 2 ports: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-November/005026.html For example the pdf says (about european ports): In other words, the sui generis license should not extend the restrictions of the CC license conditions to things (facts, ideas, information, etc.) not protected by copyright. Actually, ignore the above fragment. But also says: 2. Unconditional waiver of the of the sui generis database rights under the national law implementing the European Database Directive at the end of section 3 of the licenses: Where the licensor is the owner of the sui generis database rights under the national law implementing the European Database Directive, the licensor will waive this right. and the person making the tiles is probably not the owner (but in case of tiles.openstreetmap.org it might be). Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:01 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 00:54, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity. Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is further restrictions you would have to use something other than cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract. If you are given a CC-BY-SA licensed work, they you are limited by by the CC-BY-SA license on the copyrightable aspects only. Other aspects like trademarks or patents that are inherent in the work are already limited irrespective of the CC-BY-SA license. The person who gave you the CC-BY-SA licensed work does not have to enforce you to follow trademark or patent restrictions, by contract or another copyright license. I'm aware of the patent/trademark issues, I wish Frederik hadn't brought this up as it only serves to side track things, because unless he plans to constantly patent tiles we can ignore that side of things completely. Let me try copyright-only examples. I can take up the full text of all of the works of William Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is already in the public domain, I can copy those parts from the book without following the book's CC license. In this case, the CC license has no way to restrict me from doing that. Here's another example. All English Wikipedia articles are licensed CC-BY-SA. Most articles have images. Some images are *not* licensed CC-BY-SA. In fact, many of such images are included in the article under fair use reasoning. That doesn't give the reader the license to use such images under CC-BY-SA simply because they were included in CC-BY-SA-licensed articles. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 05:25, davespod osmli...@dellams.fastmail.fm wrote: In a similar vein, I think OSMF and any other publisher of OSM-derived map tiles under CC-by-SA would be well advised to be explicit about what it is they are licensing under CC-by-SA. In other words, they should follow the advice here (under Be specific about what you are licensing): As I said before, you can easily do this with copyright, use CC-by-ND instead of CC-by-SA, but if something is licensed as CC-by-SA it can legally be derived from as long as the resulting work is also CC-by-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 17/06/11 09:34, Steve Bennett wrote: Also, a question I should probably know the answer to: is ODbL considered compatible with CC-BY-SA? Can you relicense something that is CC-BY-SA as ODbL? (I guess the answer must be yes, but could someone confirm?) The answer is no, unless the person who holds the rights to the BY-SA work explicitly chooses to separately licence it under the ODbL. This is because BY-SA is a copyleft licence and so it doesn't allow the work or its derivatives to be placed under another licence. Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA Produced Work. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 17 June 2011 18:38, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Data from an ODbL database may however be used to create a BY-SA Produced Work. So this means produced works can be traced into a cc-by-sa data set then? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Hi, On 06/17/11 16:20, John Smith wrote: Patents don't apply here I am trying to make a general point about the scope of CC licenses, to which the patents example is relevant. Do you or do you not agree, that if a picture describing a patent is made available under CC-BY-SA (and NOT CC-BY-ND), one's ability to implement the procedure described in the picture, and thereby create a derivative work of the picture, would be limited? Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote: So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from, Do read the discussions I had with odc-discuss when someone asked about this before: http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-July/000275.html http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-August/000282.html unless the ODBL prevents this in which case tile users must agree with a contract preventing them from doing this activity, If you miraculously manage to create a Derived Database from the Produced Work, you know the requirements due to the advertising on the Produced Work (which BY-SA handles under the BY part of the licence). - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:30, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, On 06/17/11 16:20, John Smith wrote: Patents don't apply here I am trying to make a general point about the scope of CC licenses, to which the patents example is relevant. Do you or do you not agree, that if a picture describing a patent is made available under CC-BY-SA (and NOT CC-BY-ND), one's ability to implement the procedure described in the picture, and thereby create a derivative work of the picture, would be limited? There is 4 types of IP law (5 in the EU with the 5th being DB directive), contract, patent, copyright, trademarks. You can't apply patents laws against copyright and vice versa, so no you are wrong on this matter, or it's a very very poor example. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:32, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 06/17/11 16:06, John Smith wrote: So once again I'm met with silence and can only assume that produced works licensed under cc-by or cc-by-sa can be derived from, Do read the discussions I had with odc-discuss when someone asked about this before: Which is mostly about database directive, which only applies to a limited region. If you miraculously manage to create a Derived Database from the Produced Work, you know the requirements due to the advertising on the Produced Work (which BY-SA handles under the BY part of the licence). Without a contract it wouldn't be enforceable outside the EU, you would need at the very minimum a copyright license like cc-by-nd, especially on those that plan to distribute tiles as PD/CC0. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Hi, (this is offtopic, I know) On 17 June 2011 16:06, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 06/17/11 11:18, John Smith wrote: Only if the amount of data traced is not substantial. CC-by-SA makes no such distinction, it's either cc-by-sa or it's not cc-by-sa, so which license can tiles be put under? Sorry, I thought you had asked about tracing from tiles. Tiles can be put under CC-BY-SA with no problem; in fact the main OSM tileserver is likely to do that. I have two doubts here. I understand the produced work can be put under a By-SA license but database rights may still apply. But: 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM, which would prevent their uses. Does that mean that only the older licenses can be used for produced works? Looking at GPLv3 and other licenses it is becoming more common for licenses to assure that the content is not restricted by those additional rights, and it makes sense because in some way those additional rights make the works not free. 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in country B without database rights? The second person is then as far as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract. Is that incorrect? Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Hi, On 06/17/11 16:35, John Smith wrote: I am trying to make a general point about the scope of CC licenses, to which the patents example is relevant. Do you or do you not agree, that if a picture describing a patent is made available under CC-BY-SA (and NOT CC-BY-ND), one's ability to implement the procedure described in the picture, and thereby create a derivative work of the picture, would be limited? There is 4 types of IP law (5 in the EU with the 5th being DB directive), contract, patent, copyright, trademarks. You can't apply patents laws against copyright and vice versa, so no you are wrong on this matter, or it's a very very poor example. I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity. Once you accept that, I can continue my argument; but if you try to hold on to the simplistic either something is CC-BY-SA or it isn't assumption then it makes no sense. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity. Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is further restrictions you would have to use something other than cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
2011/6/17 andrzej zaborowski balr...@gmail.com: 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in country B without database rights? The second person is then as far as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract. Is that incorrect? Strictly: what matters is where B carries out acts that might be those exclusive to the database right owner. It doesn't matter where B lives or where B receives a licence, but where B extracts or re-utilizes the tileset. If B does those in a country without the sui generis database right, then B obviously does not have to worry about infringement. The tileset is still subject to A's database rights in those countries that recognise it and thus would need A's permission (which CC-BY-SA does not, I think, give). CC-BY-SA is not intended to be a contract, so there's no contractual relationship between A and B, though its easy enough for one to be implied in some jurisdictions. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Hi, On 06/17/11 16:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM, which would prevent their uses. News to me. Do you have a pointer? It is true that CC-BY-SA, for as long as I can think, has had a section that said something like you may not slap on restrictions that diminish the rights granted by the license, or something. That was meant against DRM, or against a simple I sell you this CC-BY-SA map tile but only if you sign the additional contract here that says you may not distribute it or so. But that applied only the the rights granted by the license; and the rights granted by the license were basically to do stuff that is normally restricted by *copyright*. Stuff that is normally restricted by patents (for example) was never covered by CC-BY-SA in the first place, so the you may not add restrictions rule didn't apply. 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in country B without database rights? The second person is then as far as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract. Is that incorrect? This is a difficult issue and I am in no way certain, but the reverse engineering discussion has at the very least brought the result that you cannot wash away database right by going via another country, i.e. if you take something to which database rights apply in Europe, then go to the US and publish it there as PD, then someone else from Europe takes the US product, then the database rights will magically reappear, i.e. even though something could legally be PD in the US, someone in Europe might be prohibited from using it. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Am 17.06.2011 16:39, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: ... 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in country B without database rights? The second person is then as far as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract. Is that incorrect? ... I'm sure that our legal experts will step in if this isn't correct :-). While in your example the person in country B can probably legally ignore the terms of the ODBL (publisher in A however must include a notice pointing to the ODBL and so on), it doesn't make a database generated from that tileset legal in country A. Since at least most European countries (this is very generalised) consider an Internet publication the same as a national publication, any publisher of such a database would have to take precautions to block access in the EU (and countries with similar database protection regulations) or risk getting in to trouble. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 00:50, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Am 17.06.2011 16:39, schrieb andrzej zaborowski: ... 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in country B without database rights? The second person is then as far as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract. Is that incorrect? ... I'm sure that our legal experts will step in if this isn't correct :-). While in your example the person in country B can probably legally ignore the terms of the ODBL (publisher in A however must include a notice pointing to the ODBL and so on), it doesn't make a database generated from that tileset legal in country A. Since at least most European countries (this is very generalised) consider an Internet publication the same as a national publication, any publisher of such a database would have to take precautions to block access in the EU (and countries with similar database protection regulations) or risk getting in to trouble. This could be hard, especially since OSM-F isn't complying with Chinese law, so why would others comply with EU law unless they were in the EU? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:44 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 00:40, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I am not trying to apply patents to OSM. I am trying to use the example of patents to prove to you that your reasoning either something is CC-BY-SA or it isn't is, in this simplicity, invalid; that there may well exist limitations external to the license that limit what you can or cannot do with the CC-BY-SA licensed entity. Sorry if I didn't explain myself properly, I meant if you apply CC-by-SA you are allowed or limited by that license only, if there is further restrictions you would have to use something other than cc-by-sa (such as CC-by-ND) to enforce this, OR use a contract. If you are given a CC-BY-SA licensed work, they you are limited by by the CC-BY-SA license on the copyrightable aspects only. Other aspects like trademarks or patents that are inherent in the work are already limited irrespective of the CC-BY-SA license. The person who gave you the CC-BY-SA licensed work does not have to enforce you to follow trademark or patent restrictions, by contract or another copyright license. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 17/06/11 15:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote: 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM, which would prevent their uses. Does that mean that only the older licenses can be used for produced works? They just say that they only cover copyright (see 1.h in BY-SA 3.0 Unported). But do look at how the DbCL interacts with the ODbL in Produced Works. There isn't a copyright clash. Looking at GPLv3 and other licenses it is becoming more common for licenses to assure that the content is not restricted by those additional rights, and it makes sense because in some way those additional rights make the works not free. Copyright makes the work non-free, but the GPL uses that. :-) And GPL 3 says: “Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.. It also includes a patent licence. So the GPL includes, rather than excludes, those rights in order to ensure that they do not restrict the work. This is the ODbL's strategy as well. Some people disagree with this for coherent philosophical reasons. I disagree with them. :-) 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in country B without database rights? The second person is then as far as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract. Is that incorrect? Copyright may apply in country B. There will be pathological cases where copyright, database right, and contract law do not apply. At the moment, only the first is used though, so there will be even less coverage. (IANAL, TINLA.) - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 01:46, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Let me try copyright-only examples. I can take up the full text of all of the works of William Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is already in the public domain, I can copy those parts from the book without following the book's CC license. In this case, the CC license has no way to restrict me from doing that. Here's another example. All English Wikipedia articles are licensed CC-BY-SA. Most articles have images. Some images are *not* licensed CC-BY-SA. In fact, many of such images are included in the article under fair use reasoning. That doesn't give the reader the license to use such images under CC-BY-SA simply because they were included in CC-BY-SA-licensed articles. The problem here isn't cc-by-sa, it's bigger picture stuff, from what I understand/have been led to believe, the ODBL doesn't limit what license produced works can be published under, outside of the EU there is limited or no database rights, so if tiles are produced and published under PD/CC0/CC-by/CC-by-SA there is no limitation on deriving, selling etc etc those tiles, other than what those copyright licenses limit you to do, obviously deriving cc-by-sa tiles would need to be under a cc-by-sa license etc. I don't wish to complicate this issue, but I'm led to believe that a lot of database rights are yet to have precedents, I think this would be pointless conjecture at this time. Frederik and others were trying to claim there was some kind of implied limit on derivatives, even in non-EU countries, which comes back to my original question about minimum license, or websites needing to have a binding contract on the end user to limit or prevent turning information on tiles back into some kind of vector data set. Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced work and so on. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 18 June 2011 01:46, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: Let me try copyright-only examples. I can take up the full text of all of the works of William Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is already in the public domain, I can copy those parts from the book without following the book's CC license. In this case, the CC license has no way to restrict me from doing that. Here's another example. All English Wikipedia articles are licensed CC-BY-SA. Most articles have images. Some images are *not* licensed CC-BY-SA. In fact, many of such images are included in the article under fair use reasoning. That doesn't give the reader the license to use such images under CC-BY-SA simply because they were included in CC-BY-SA-licensed articles. The problem here isn't cc-by-sa, it's bigger picture stuff, from what I understand/have been led to believe, the ODBL doesn't limit what license produced works can be published under, outside of the EU there is limited or no database rights, so if tiles are produced and published under PD/CC0/CC-by/CC-by-SA there is no limitation on deriving, selling etc etc those tiles, other than what those copyright licenses limit you to do, obviously deriving cc-by-sa tiles would need to be under a cc-by-sa license etc. I don't wish to complicate this issue, but I'm led to believe that a lot of database rights are yet to have precedents, I think this would be pointless conjecture at this time. Frederik and others were trying to claim there was some kind of implied limit on derivatives, even in non-EU countries, which comes back to my original question about minimum license, or websites needing to have a binding contract on the end user to limit or prevent turning information on tiles back into some kind of vector data set. Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced work and so on. I don't think you're going to get clear answers about these specific cases. It will take a court decision to provide precedent rulings on such things. And this is not a problem specific to ODbL. Even CC licenses have unresolved problems, like a question I thought of regarding how a person in country A will be able to use a work released under a CC license that was ported to country B. Should the person in country A follow provisions in CC-license-ported-to-B even if that doesn't apply to his jurisdiction? Can he use the work in CC-license-ported-to-A? Or can he revert to the unported CC license? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced work and so on. It's a novel concept, to be sure. but if you want to understand it better you can always ask the licence's authors on odc-discuss. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 02:26, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think you're going to get clear answers about these specific cases. It will take a court decision to provide precedent rulings on such things. Well the copyright side of things seems pretty simple, especially if people are using CC0/PD, and if there is no contract with the end user that also is pretty simple, as contract law also doesn't apply. The only thing left would be database rights, but as was pointed out, it seems CC is planning to waive DB rights in future CC licenses, but I haven't paid much attention to this because it doesn't apply to me, but I thought some of the current EU specific CC licenses waived DB rights. And this is not a problem specific to ODbL. Even CC licenses have unresolved problems, like a question I thought of regarding how a person in country A will be able to use a work released under a CC license that was ported to country B. Should the person in country A follow provisions in CC-license-ported-to-B even if that doesn't apply to his jurisdiction? Can he use the work in CC-license-ported-to-A? Or can he revert to the unported CC license? You are assuming CC licenses are the only issue, what about tiles published under CC0/PD, none of the above would apply. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On 18 June 2011 02:40, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:07 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Then you have a whole other argument over what constitutes a produced work and so on. It's a novel concept, to be sure. but if you want to understand it better you can always ask the licence's authors on odc-discuss. Why isn't there a concise reference on all this? Surely this sort of thing has been asked enough to warrant it, along with all the other common questions, chances are then they wouldn't keep getting asked multiple times. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: Let me try copyright-only examples. I can take up the full text of all of the works of William Shakespeare, compile it into a book with annotations, and release the book under CC-BY-SA. Now since the original text by Shakespeare is already in the public domain, I can copy those parts from the book without following the book's CC license. In this case, the CC license has no way to restrict me from doing that. I prefer a musical analogy: a publisher can licence a particular recording of a song without licensing the underlying composition. So, just because they give you permission to distribute the recording, and even remix it or use samples in your own published composition, that does not mean you have permission to make your own recording of the song and publish it (even if you only derived the lyrics and melody from the recording and have never seen the original score). Nor indeed does it mean you have permission to write down the lyrics and publish them. If I understand things correctly, a composer could licence, using a non-public licence grant, an artist to perform and record their song. The artist could then legitimately licence their recording of the song under CC-by-SA. The composer would still be able to keep all their rights reserved. However, the artist would be well advised to be explicit that it was only the recording they had licensed (and not the composition). In a similar vein, I think OSMF and any other publisher of OSM-derived map tiles under CC-by-SA would be well advised to be explicit about what it is they are licensing under CC-by-SA. In other words, they should follow the advice here (under Be specific about what you are licensing): http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing David P.S. I realise this does not address the question of the extent to which the underlying OSM data is, or can be, protected in Australia. But that is a complex question and, as ever, there is no substitute for professional legal advice specific to one's own proposal - especially if one's proposal is to breach the spirit of OSM's licence :) P.P.S. IANAL TINLA -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6488532.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com wrote: James; all I can say is that the paragraph in question was written by our General Counsel specifically to allow existing contributions to stay in place. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't comment on interpretation! Regards Hi Ben, I'd like to second the appreciation for Nearmap's position here. I'm very much heartened that the large amount of Nearmap tracing I did will not be lost. I think it's a real pity that Nearmap and OSMF weren't able to reach a suitable agreement regarding future tracing, but I guess that's life. Maybe one day. Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
- Original Message - From: Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com To: OpenStreetMap Learned Discussions t...@openstreetmap.org; OSM Australian Talk List talk...@openstreetmap.org; Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:30 AM Subject: [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap Hi all As promised, with apologies for the delay, here is the statement from NearMap regarding submission of derived works of our PhotoMaps to OSM. * Nearmap.com wishes to clarify the extent to which OpenStreetMap (OSM) may use additions or edits to its street maps which are derived from nearmap.com’s PhotoMaps. All such additions or edits submitted to OSM prior to 17 June 2011 may be held and continue to be used by OSM under the terms in place between OSM and the individual which submitted the addition or edit at the relevant time. From 18 June 2011, OSM may not accept or use any additions or edits to its streetmaps or any other data which is derived from nearmap.com PhotoMaps. If any data derived from nearmap.com PhotoMaps is provided to OSM after that date, it must be deleted from OSM’s database immediately. * For clarity; the second paragraph allows edits submitted before the 17th of June 2011 under CC-BY-SA (i.e., by someone who hadn't accepted the new CTs at the time of submission) *or* ODbL/whatever (by someone who had accepted the CTs at the time of submission) to stay in the database. For the Australian mappers in particular, this means that there need be no mass deletion of existing data based on tracing from nearmap.com PhotoMaps. It also means that nearmap.com PhotoMaps can't be used after the 17th of June as a basis for tracing data to submit to OSM. Ben, sorry to be pedantic, but when you say the second paragraph allows edits submitted before the 17th of June 2011 under CC-BY-SA (i.e., by someone who hadn't accepted the new CTs at the time of submission) . to stay in the database, do you mean it is OK for someone who in the past has made edits based on Nearmap imagery, (and who has not yet agreed to the CT's because they had used Nearmap) , to now agree to the CT's without being in breach of Nearmaps T C's? I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between allowing edits to remain in the database which is something OSM sysadmins have control over, and allowing users to agree to the CT's which is something individual OSM users have control over, and I'm just trying to understand , as someone who has used Nearmap, but not agreed to the CT's, where I stand. Regards David Again, I'd like to clarify that nearmap.com *have not changed anything in our licensing terms*. This is not us withdrawing our support. The OSMF are making a change to the contributor terms which makes them incompatible with the requirement, under our community licence, that derived works be distributed only under CC-BY-SA. We are not able to change our licence to allow distribution of derived works under unspecified future licences. Regards Ben -- *Ben Last* *Development Manager, HyperWeb* [image: nearmap.com] http://www.nearmap.com *T:* +61 8 9321 9340 | *D:* +61 8 6140 7212 | *F:* +61 8 9321 6876 | *M:*+61 423 475 673 *W:* www.nearmap.com | *A:* Ground Floor, 66 Kings Park Road, West Perth WA 6005 [image: leave us a message on facebook] http://www.facebook.com/nearmap [image: follow us on twitter] http://www.twitter.com/nearmap [image: nearmap youtube channel] http://www.youtube.com/nearmap [image: linkedin]http://www.linkedin.com/company/nearmap-pty-ltd [image: Get your Free nearmap.com newsletter now!]http://www.nearmap.com/nearmap/subscription (1) This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please contact us, then delete the email. (2) Before opening or using attachments, check them for viruses and defects. The contents of this email and its attachments may become scrambled, truncated or altered in transmission. Please notify us of any anomalies. (3) Our liability is limited to resupplying the email and attached files or the cost of having them resupplied. ___ Talk-au mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap
- Original Message - From: Ben Last ben.l...@nearmap.com To: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net; OSM Australian Talk List talk...@openstreetmap.org; Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 12:48 AM Subject: Re: [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap On 15 June 2011 19:52, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: sorry to be pedantic, but when you say the second paragraph allows edits submitted before the 17th of June 2011 under CC-BY-SA (i.e., by someone who hadn't accepted the new CTs at the time of submission) . to stay in the database, do you mean it is OK for someone who in the past has made edits based on Nearmap imagery, (and who has not yet agreed to the CT's because they had used Nearmap) , to now agree to the CT's without being in breach of Nearmaps T C's? I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but there is a difference between allowing edits to remain in the database which is something OSM sysadmins have control over, and allowing users to agree to the CT's which is something individual OSM users have control over, and I'm just trying to understand , as someone who has used Nearmap, but not agreed to the CT's, where I stand. Pedantic is ok, this was written by lawyers! The second paragraph was drafted specifically to allow any NearMap-derived edits made up to the 17th of June to stay in the OSM database. As I understand it, this statement allows a user to sign up to the new CTs without violating our licence in respect of those edits. Regards Ben Ben many thanks for the quick, and clear, response. Regards David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
