Re: [OSM-legal-talk] YouTube videos
The issue is not that you will not find a jurisdiction in which it is legal, the issue is that you will surely find one where (at least systematic) extraction of information from the videos violates the rights of the copyright (or similar rights) holder, not to mention ToS issues. Now if that is in country x where we don't care if our data can be used we can simply shrug our shoulders, I'm just not sure that that still exists. Simon Am 08.08.2014 00:39, schrieb Martijn van Exel: I’m having someone look into it - worthwhile if you see how many road geeks post lengthy drive videos on YouTube. Stuff like this — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUWolPiisu4 and the link I posted earlier. Here is a CC-BY one which would be OK to use — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfE9xUH3wGk -- Martijn van Exel From: Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com mailto:a...@mapbox.com Reply: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Date: August 7, 2014 at 11:11:31 AM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] YouTube videos I've in the past used information from Youtube videos in rare instances. For example to confirm the surface quality of a road. Facts aren't copyrightable. I'd love to hear a more qualified person's opinion though. On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org mailto:m...@rtijn.org wrote: Hi all, Has anyone ever looked into the legal aspects of using YouTube videos to derive information from? Do any general rules apply? An example of a potentially useful video would be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH99jVtb1egfeature=youtu.be - I see that the Standard YouTube License is applied to this video, the salient part of those terms (to my mind) being 'You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content.’ See the full terms here: https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms Note that YouTube users can also choose a CC-BY license - which should be compatible with ODbL. But the default is the Standard YouTube License outlined above. Thanks - -- Martijn van Exel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] YouTube videos
Am 05.08.2014 20:25, schrieb Martijn van Exel: ... Note that YouTube users can also choose a CC-BY license - which should be compatible with ODbL. But the default is the Standard YouTube License outlined above. ... CC-BY is not per se compatible. We need (and I believe this is still the case with 4.0) explicit acknowledgement that the way that we provide attribution is OK and that we do not provide downstream attribution for individual sources. In the past it has been reasonably easy to get that from institutional sources, but it does imply adding the source to our contributors list etc. something that we would likely want to avoid in the 1000s. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] YouTube videos
On 8 August 2014 09:48, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: CC-BY is not per se compatible. We need (and I believe this is still the case with 4.0) explicit acknowledgement that the way that we provide attribution is OK and that we do not provide downstream attribution for individual sources. Getting a bit off-topic, but it seems quite a few people don't realise this about CC-By (and also some other 'open' licences). I think it would be a really good idea if there could be some sort of official lists of known acceptable licences for third-party data and known unacceptable licences for third-party data either on the wiki or on the OSMF site, that people could be pointed to. Even if the acceptable list is extremely short, explicitly listing incompatible licences would help get across the point that care is needed, and hopefully help people avoid accidentally making use of incompatible sources. (At least I don't think such lists exist at the moment -- the closest I could find is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines#Make_sure_data_license_is_OK. However, the issue doesn't just affect imports, but also other sources that people may want to use on an ad-hoc or manual basis.) Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] YouTube videos
Thanks for clarifying, I glossed over the implications of the attribution requirement a little too easily. -- Martijn On 8/8/14, 2:48 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Am 05.08.2014 20:25, schrieb Martijn van Exel: ... Note that YouTube users can also choose a CC-BY license - which should be compatible with ODbL. But the default is the Standard YouTube License outlined above. ... CC-BY is not per se compatible. We need (and I believe this is still the case with 4.0) explicit acknowledgement that the way that we provide attribution is OK and that we do not provide downstream attribution for individual sources. In the past it has been reasonably easy to get that from institutional sources, but it does imply adding the source to our contributors list etc. something that we would likely want to avoid in the 1000s. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
