Re: [OSM-talk] Paweł's q: what can be done?
On 02/02/2013 19:55, Michal Migurski wrote: For what it's worth, I agree with Jeff and Paweł on this. If OSMF is going to be a big, beautiful mess it should own that and publish the CD for everyone to see. Anarchists gonna anarchate. If on the other hand we want strong leadership that can handle a trademark dispute on its own, then we're missing a lot of what leadership is about: clear communication, visible power structure, authority figures who can speak on behalf of the organization, draw fire, and so on. Does the board want to be a board? -mike. Heck, I'll step up to the board and reply on their behalf if they're all too scared to do so. Publishing a Cease Desist notice isn't illegal - ChillingEffects should be evidence enough of this. It would be in the best interests of demystifying this whole debacle if the notice was published immediately, prominently and in full on the OSM web site. Personally I also wonder as to the legal legitimacy of this CD, particularly when it emanates from America and is on behalf of an American company whose CTM application was (as has been well noted) refused in the EU on absolute grounds (the genericism of geocode). As far as I can see, Geocode Inc.'s request has absolutely no legal weight in the EU. Personally I would have politely acknowledged receipt of the original CD, noted their request and replied with we kindly refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. This whole thing is quickly becoming borderline ridiculous. We should't be afeared of some marauding American company with the mistaken belief that they have exclusive rights to a term even outside of their trade mark's jurisdiction. They can fly over here and pursue the matter in an English court if it so concerns them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue
On 02/02/2013 21:01, Aun Yngve Johnsen wrote: This discussion is way out of hand. You guys screaming for publishing the C+D, didn't you see the answer from SimonPoole? They have asked lawyers about advise in publishing it, as well as releasing more information about it. It is not a sign of weak leadership to ask for legal advise in a case that can be as hairy as trademark and copyright issues. I'm extremely interested to see what in the notice specifies that the TM holder believes that they can pursue and control usage when mentioned in proximity of Google services. It's such a risible request. That's what makes this delay so frustrating for the community as a whole! Those of us in favour of publication are hardly 'screaming' for it. (This includes all the 'armchair lawyers' and some of us who have some real world experience dealing with the wonderful world of US and Community TMs including disputing, filing and applying for invalidity). Community members are requesting it as it impacts upon work they do, there's no real reason to withhold the text of the notice. OSMF has no real requirement to seek legal guidance prior to first publication, this can be sought after initial acknowledgment of receipt, tailoring their action accordingly. Redacting or editing directly as a result of simply receiving a CD is not an ideal first step. Does OSM consider itself to be in breach of something discussed in the CD or that it has actually done something wrong? I unequivocally believe the opposite to be true - and that Geocode Inc. is misrepresenting the situation. Not that I support trademarking dictionary words, but obviously somebody do, and some patent authorities accept. OSMF need to thread correctly into this matter, and temporarily removing potentially material is one of the steps. As far as I can see, none of SimonPoole's edits are actually redacting the matter in question, his edits are more a first response, like a we have recieved your notice and prepare ourself for action. If this case turns toxic maybe SimonPoole will have to redact the edits with the contaminated trademark, let us hope it never comes to that. The USPTO's mark awards have no jurisdiction outside of the States. Geocode Inc.'s CTM was 'absolutely refused' on grounds of genericism (prior art, if you will), by OHIM. This is an open-and-shut case! Let us all also work together in this case to show support to OSM and OSMF and do what can be done to undermine the claims from the issuer of the C+D in such a way that any court cases will tip in favour of OSM continuing what we always have done. I like most others support the OSMF's contribution to the mapping projects. OSM has made great progress over the past few years. There's no need to do anything to undermine the issuer's claims, they undermine themselves if they claim trade mark authority in Europe when no such authority exists. To fully protect their reg mark, Geocode would need to follow the procedures of the Madrid System and apply for an International TM to cover ~70 territories where they wish to protect the mark (including the USA). OHIM handle Community Trade Marks for the EU (you can still register a mark solely for the UK without it covering the EU which is what it looks like Geocode tried to do). With it costing 600 Euros just to renew a CTM for ten years, I expect they don't think it's worth their while to file for an International trade mark... Given their existing refusal it's reasonable to assume they'd never get it. Geocode are trade mark trolling! I would very much like to see the C+D myself as I find the claims (as far as I have understood from the information already leaked) totally unacceptable, but have put myself with patience, at least until SimonPoole and OSMF have had time to get a formal advise from any legal partner. Without seeing the specifics of the CD (and now we're talking in circles), I still believe that any legal counsel worth their salt would instruct OSMF to refer Geocode to the response in Arkell v. Pressdram. I'm willing to stake five of the Queen's English pounds on this ;-) If the legal advice substantially differs, I'll double this £5 then donate to the Foundation's fighting fund, and I'll become a paid-up OSMF member. May still become an OSMF member to vote in the next Board elections. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] STFU
On 02/02/2013 22:07, Paweł Paprota wrote: On 02/02/2013 10:23 PM, Chris Hill wrote: Threats to leave the project remind me of the bullshit thrown around during licence-change when hardly anyone actually had the balls to follow through. If people are so unhappy then go, but do so quickly and quietly and leave the people really interested in OSM to continue making the very best map database we can. So you don't acknowledge that there are people (like me) who are really interested in OSM and same time they are discouraged by a situation like this and are considering leaving the project? By your logic either everyone has to STFU and agree with the actions of OSMF or they have to leave the project because they are not really interested in OSM. Paweł Everybody volunteers their time and knowledge but the existence of a board at OSMF doesn't simply mean that some volunteers are now more equal than others. (Organisations frequently rotate through board members.) Thinking about structure, some discussion should be given as to OSMF possibly converting to a co-operative structure - it's the perfect type of organisation to benefit from a co-op arrangement, either an IPS Mutual, BenCom or even workers co-op. People can be nominated to represent the org but ultimately they are answerable to all Members. It can also seek investment and those members can also gain one vote (irrespective of contribution) in company business. As it is, OSMF seems notionally answerable to the greater OSM community after being nominated to oversee its concerns and become custodian of the equipment, run outreach projects, fundraise etc. The board is elected by just 358 paid OSMF members from (we can only assume) the OSM community (of thousands? Tens of thousands?). The work they do is fabulous and contributes to the continuation of OSM but there's still not, that I can see, a sufficiently stable framework in place should this arrangement change. If OSMF decided to function differently, selectively disregard the community or even operate oligarchically as 'benevolent dictators' what could be done? Not much short of an insurrection or establishment of parallel service with a new name as they hold all the cards. A worldwide project deserves membership representation and answerability of the controlling board. My concern here comes from seeing other community organisations torn apart by subsets of nominated people who initially took charge, ran it with some vision, decisiveness but when they got cold feet or wanted a change, the organisation inevitably ran onto the rocks through lack of continuity and attrition. It's often very hard to resurrect a project or organisation once it's ground to a halt. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Re: Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue
On 01/02/2013 16:52, Cartinus wrote: Huh? What's really touchy is the osmf being secretive about something. If you got a letter from some lawyer, then the only way you might get all the volunteers in this project to comply is telling them what is happening. Original Message Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:43:42 +0100 From: Simon Poole si...@poole.ch To: carti...@xs4all.nl Cartinus The location of both servers and organisation is irrelevant (as you should know after something like 20 years of case law wrt providing services over the Internet), relevant is that it could be construed that the term was used by us (in a wide sense of the word) in the US and that the trademark holder objects to such usage. Richard Fairhurst has said the rest. Please do not post this answer to the list, the issue is extremely touchy. Simon Am 01.02.2013 17:16, schrieb Cartinus: Plugging google geocode trademark issue and several variations of it in three different search engines didn't give any meaningful results. So unless you can explain to us why a foundation in the UK with servers in the UK should be bothered by a trademark conflict between two other parties on the other side of the Atlantic I'm going to ignore the request not to use the word geocode. On 02/01/2013 05:06 PM, Andreas Labres wrote: On 01.02.13 16:48, Jochen Topf wrote: I don't think use of the English language is merely incidental to what we are doing here. Can you explain why we suddenly can't use words from the English language any more? ... And no, I don't think this is something for private emails. 100% agreed. Simon, please be more elaborative on what's going on here. Without knowing US trademark policies by heart, but to geocode is a generic term that cannot be used as a trademark. One can of course use this term with regard to, e.g., the process of transferring a postal address into geographic coordinates. My opinion? All this is irrelevant and OSM is fine to continue using geocode. IANAL but I do work in a sector concerned with intellectual property and EU law; based on extensive prior art and extensive genericised usage of the word geocode any trademark of the word or phrase geo code or geocode is without merit and unenforceable. OSM's usage is itself a great example. The USPTO has issued TMs and patents in the past that have been subsequently revoked or dismissed... And a US TM registration doesn't apply in Europe, OHIM has to issue a US TM reg. It's something we're actively involved with at work at the moment (contesting a registration and disputing a request for registration in other categories on a mark which we already have registered). Checking the USPTO's TESS system just now, one registration is GEOCODE GLOBAL which is a service mark; one registration by Winfield Solutions is in the published for opposition stage so it's not been granted yet. It's for Turf Seed (Plant growth micronutrients) so doesn't and cannot apply to any usage in a geospatial context. GEOCODE GLOBAL's service mark's current registration is: Goods and ServicesIC 042. US 100 101. G S: brokerage services for use in generating geographic information displays, namely, brokerage in the field of geographical information related to maps and cartography. FIRST USE: 20020503. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20020503 Its original registration GS classification was IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G S: Computer software for computing and identifying an exact location and time by creating a numeric geospatial coordinate measurement representation used in the field of geospatial analysis. FIRST USE: 19990726. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 2726 That they've not contested concurrent usage of the word geocode in other contexts for over a decade establishes precedent that any future attempts are likely unenforceable due to them not adequately protecting the registration. Even if they wanted to pick a fight, it would quite possibly be laughed out of court. In any matter, the plaintiff would have to come to the UK and contest the matter in an English court though! Where we would very politely show them the door, after they'd paid costs of course. ;-) tl;dr: OSMF is fine! Just carry on as before. Any letters from lawyers are just scaremongering, although I'd like to see them if any exist. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Recent edits in the wiki / Trademark issue
On 01/02/2013 18:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/2/1 Simon Poole si...@osmfoundation.org: issue with respect to the trademark GEOCODE owned by Geocode, Inc. of Alexandria, Virginia, USA. There are likely to be further related edits and changes both on the wiki and the help site. Please do not add such removed links back or undo any such edits. If you find use of the term “geocode” on our wiki or help site please replace it with a generic term (for example search), or report it to my e-mail address. What about replacing it with the German term geokode ? I fully support what been written by colliar and joto. What comes next? Corporation inc. registering a trademark for mapping party, mapper or crowd-sourced? cheers, Martin IMHO if they are arguing solely upon basis of the word then Geocode's lawyer's argument is specious. To that end, they're just trademark trolling in a retcon attempt to show defence of a trade mark they shouldn't arguably have been granted in the first place. On what grounds do they issue the CD against OSMF? Has it been detailed anywhere? I'm very curious about the contents of the issued CD if one exists and I'd very much like to see the notice. (Happy to discuss by email with relevant people off-list). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] a license violation?
On 02/01/2013 10:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2013/1/2 Robin Paulson ro...@bumblepuppy.org: i was looking for unusual uses of osm data, and found this: http://store.axismaps.com/product/boston-blue Oops! We couldn’t find that page. Took a quick look at the store homepage and clicked through to the Boston typographic map (they're all the same AFAICT). All printed maps don't appear to state origin of data used as a basis for map layouts. As such, although they're not simple reprints of tiles (for e.g.) the licence is still being breached. From the OSM FAQ page, some interesting and likely relevant sections (http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License#What_do_you_mean_by_.22Attribution.22.3F): How should I attribute you? Our requested attribution is © OpenStreetMap contributors. You must make it clear that the data is available under the Open Database Licence. This can be achieved by providing a License or Terms link which links to www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl. We ask that you hyperlink the attribution to www.openstreetmap.org where possible. Because OpenStreetMap is its contributors, you may omit the word contributors if space is limited. You may optionally qualify the credit to explain what OSM content you are using. For example, if you have rendered OSM data to your own design, you may wish to use Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors. (If you are using map tiles supplied by us, you must also make it clear that the tiles are available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 licence. This may also be fulfilled by linking to www.openstreetmap.org/copyright.) ... For a printed map, the credit should appear beside the map if that is where other such credits appear, and/or in the acknowledgements section of the publication (often at the start of a book or magazine). ... In brief summary: If you correct or extend our data, you need to share your new data. If you make a map from our data, you may publish the map itself under any license you like, including commercial. You DO however, have to share the underlying data except that ... You may also add separate and distinct layers to your map made from other sources of data. This data does not have to be shared, provided there is no interaction with the OpenStreetMap derived layer. For example, you cannot have a layer of restaurant icons that only appear if the same restaurant is not in OpenStreetMap! In more detail: ... If you make a map from OpenStreetMap geodata and publish it, you may publish the map under any license you like. In ODbL parlance, this is known as a Produced Work. However, if you have added to or enhanced our data in order to make the map, you must make those additions publicly available without charge. Also, anyone can extract the original data from the map, (such as latitude and longitudes, names of streets and places), without paying you or asking your permission. You can however, put separate and distinct data layers on top of your map, such as icons showing specialists points of interest, routes, track logs, shaded areas, contours and the like, then Share-Alike does not apply to these elements as long as they do not interact with the map underneath. [quotes end] The last section is the most eyebrow raising section for me. IANAL but my interpretation of the OSM licence (based upon experience of interpretation of licenses in my day job) means axismaps doesn't have a leg to stand on if OSM is their sole source of cartographic and topographical data. Technically I believe they are in a corner -- however I propose a more gracious and mutually beneficical arrangement: someone appropriate from OSM contacts them, explains the situation and propose some form of remediation: a nonexclusive licence to distribute already-printed maps without on-page attribution; for all new print runs, the appropriate line(s) of attributive text, agreed by both parties; and a donation to OSM for every map sold, payable quarterly/six monthly/annually. An initial upfront donation wouldn't go amiss. That they're based in the UK should make this easier to pursue. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] a license violation?
On 02/01/2013 15:20, Richard Weait wrote: On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote: Am 02.01.2013 11:41, Robin Paulson wrote: http://store.axismaps.com/product/boston-blue osm is mentioned on the web site, but not on the poster itself. suggestions, comments, etc. requested please. I'm assuming that they only sell these posters though their site? In that case, it is not a license violation if the site properly attributes OSM.* If their customer then publicly displays or re-distributes these posters without informing the viewer/recipient about the source, the customer would indeed be committing a license violation - but for that we cannot technically blame the original vendor. Tobias * I'm ignoring the missing link to the license for now. Axis Maps spoke with LWG some time ago. You can probably find them in the archives on this list as well. Attribution on the map looks great, presuming that they made the map from pre-change data. They also mention OSM on the site. Both of those aspects seem good. Has anybody contacted them to find out if the data and maps are older or newer? If one was concerned about this issue, after seeing the attribution on the map, one could drop a note to le...@osmfoundation.org mailto:le...@osmfoundation.org and LWG will put it on their list for the next LWG meeting. Tobias' suggestion that I could not hang this poster in my home unless I tell every visitor about the data license seems to over reach what is required by normal copyright. I don't have to tell you that my Picasso is a Picasso* when you come over for Mappy Hour. We are talking about a printed poster here, right? If I bought one then made and sold copies, I suspect that Axis Maps would have issues with me copying without permission, just as the author of a book might not like me copying and reselling their book. But if I were to copy and resell it, with the OSM attribution on it, I can't see a reasonable data-license-violation there. Well, at least it looks like there is an attribution (at least from the bigcartel cropped image linked earlier in this thread) but it's so small so as to pretty much be invisible. More importantly, whilst it's following the letter, it's not following the spirit of the rule. Is there no requirement that the attribution has to be visible (or clearly indicated), or at least a similar size to the other body copy? Having it overlaid on graphics in a tiny point size is a little disingenuous. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
On 04/11/2012 16:48, Andrew MacKinnon wrote: In my opinion, copying from Google Street View is still a legally dubious thing to do. There is no formal licensing agreement with Google that I know of. It is perfectly fine to capture data by taking pictures yourself, but relying on Google Street View cars to take those pictures is legally dubious. Google Street View is often outdated anyway. Copying from Google Maps is clearly not allowed. I realize that we don't want to alienate users, but I think that OSM still needs to be strict about deleting contributions from legally dubious sources. Many new users simply don't realize that copying from Google is not allowed, and may have made many other contributions from legal sources (which will not be deleted). In other cases, users don't realize that there are sources that OSM is legitimately allowed to copy from - e.g. I have had to explain to users in Canada that copying road names from Google is not OK, but copying from Geobase and Canvec is perfectly acceptable. This is an interesting discussion about where to draw the line. To use one example: I could walk to the end of my street right now and look at the street sign; I could then do the same for all neighbouring roads in my locality. However, I could go to Google Street View and do the same thing. For simple pieces of factual data like that, obviously in the public domain before Google began to compile their own imagery, my gut feeling is that this is arguably OK to do in a pinch. Whilst not preferred, and 'trumpable' by another user submitting empirical observations, it's not a clear infringement of Google's cache of data as they never had exclusive access to the information prior to their own compilation efforts. You can obtain lists of street names from Royal Mail - heck, you can scrape them from PD mapping sources. The road network hasn't changed that dramatically in 100 years, save for trunk roads and infill in increasingly urban areas (IMO). However, 1:1 copying of complete topographical or road network information is far past the mark and also both a clear infringement of copyrighted materials and the licence under which access to said data is granted by the owner(s). If you copied Street View information wholesale, it's also a similarly clear infringement of licensed, copyrighted materials. Just the street names, however, isn't (on its own) a capital offence nor an obvious infringement of copyright. That all said, it shouldn't be encouraged as the sole source of information when compiling OSM maps - all it then does is further encourage laziness. What's absolutely clear as unallowable behaviour is for contributors to only rely upon road names from trad line-drawn maps, simply copying verbatim. Trap roads abound... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
