Re: [OSM-legal-talk] new use case
Hi Jennifer -- The OSM API does now allow or support systematically gathering data like that, which is also stated on the API wiki, http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/API#Terms_of_use. This OSM API is meant to support map editing applications. Even if you would gather the OSM data in some other way though, it would probably depend: how small is 'a small portion'? What OSM data is mixed with what other data and what is the license for that other data? Martijn On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Jennifer Bauman jbau...@crosschasm.com wrote: Hi, I'm thinking of using OSM in a way that I believe is different that the use cases discussed at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/License/Use_Cases and I would like to know what the license requirements would be for this use case. The use case is: A company uses the OSM API to gather data for certain routes. They then perform internal calculations of this and other data from other sources. OSM data is a small portion of the data used. The result of their calculations is used in a vehicle application (i.e., displays a value on a dashboard or changes how the vehicle operates). 1) Is this allowed? 2) If so, how would I give credit if nothing is displayed? Or would I not have to give credit since no map or direct data is displayed? Thanks, Jen Bauman -- Jennifer Bauman Director, Vehicle Modeling | CrossChasm Technologies Phone: 519.342.7385 Toll-Free: 1.800.975.2434 Email: jbau...@crosschasm.com Web: www.crosschasm.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk -- Martijn van Exel skype: mvexel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] YouTube videos
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 Reply: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Date: August 7, 2014 at 11:11:31 AM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. 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 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 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
[OSM-legal-talk] YouTube videos
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 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Voting as Associate Member
Hi all, Could anyone provide some insight into voting as a Normal Member vs as an Associate Member of the Foundation? Reading (76) of the AoA (http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association) this would cover most voting situations I have encountered, but can anyone give an example of a situation where I would be entitled to vote as a Normal Member but not as an Associate Member? See membership types here: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Membership Thanks, -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: On 2014-07-14 11:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote: Also if we assume geocoding yields Produced Work the definition of Substantial doesn't matter. A database that is based upon the Database, and includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents is a derivative database. This doesn't exclude databases where the items in the database are produced works, e.g. a database of geocoding results. If you are extracting insubstantial parts of the database (keeping in mind that repeated insubstantial can be substantial) than the ODbL imposes no requirements, not share-alike nor attribution. To me it seems that there is a demarcation line between ephemeral geocoding on the one hand, where a singular coordinate pair is extracted from OSM as the result of a geocoding operation for the purpose of immediate use, leading to a Produced Work, and 'permanent geocoding' (as mentioned in the guidelines) on the other hand, where geocoding is used in a systematic way, leading to a Derivative database. Correct? This should be made clearer in the definition part of the guideline then, which now encapsulates both these use cases stating the result of geocoding is 'one or more Geocodes. Geocodes are then stored either permanently or temporarily [...]'. -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote: Only when you start to use the process to systematically recreate a database from the process the ODbL kicks in. This is also how I'm reading this. Obviously the sticky point is the definition of what's a database in this sentence: systematically recreate a database from the process. You can't abuse geocoding to recreate OpenStreetMap without triggering share alike. The definition of 'substantial' is key here, isn't it? In one of the examples I added, the result of OSM-based geocoding actions would potentially be stored on a client in a collection of 'favorites' together with other favorites that may be the result of tainted geocoding. There's really two questions here - 1) is this collection of favorites 'substantial' and 2) does this mixed storage trigger share alike in an of itself? -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Alex Barth a...@mapbox.com wrote: We're 100% in grey territory on geocoding and you can keep reading the ODbL in circles. Yes, and thanks a lot Alex for taking the lead in writing up these guidelines. I think a lot of value in this discussion will come from well defined examples. I added a couple more to the list, sourced from discussions we've been having at Telenav. -- Martijn van Exel ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-us] New version of US redaction map
Hi On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Mike N nice...@att.net wrote: On 8/13/2012 11:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote: It’s all CC BY-SA right now so you’d be okay now, but I think it’d be a problem in the future under both CC BY-SA and ODbL if you were mix the data in this way. I'd think this is not actually importing any information directly from the redacted copyrighted CC BY-SA data: it's just using it to set or clear a flag. Much as if you were heading out to do a survey, printed Google navigation directions, and found that the Google directions are wrong when you get there - you'd conclude Mismatch, but still rely only on survey and approved sources to create OSM data. I would still be using data that is not ODbL licensed together with data that is ODbL licensed to create the layer. How that layer is being used by mappers to focus their remapping efforts is not in question here I think - the data is not directly used to create new OSM data. Anyway, I should probably ask over at legal-talk. Martijn -- martijn van exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
All, On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-29 at 11:06:38 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote: The storage part is not true any more. Bing used OSM data to mask out military areas in Germany, so the Bing images are now automatically CC-BY-SA. No, they are not. If they did that (I haven't followed the related threads and I don't know exactly what happened) they would be in violation of our copyright. One of the way the could stop that violation would be to release the images under CC-BY-SA, another just as legitimate would be to stop distributing them. Having a license applying in an automatic way would not make sense: consider the case of product X owned by A and given under a restrictive license to B (the usual case with areal pics, btw); if B used X together with CC-BY-SA (or GPL) licensed product Y, A would find their product released under another license 1. against their will, 2. through no fault of their own. OK, I am officially more confused about this now than I was before asking. Thanks for all your input though. I should probably have asked the legal question separately in legal-talk. I am not a lawyer myself but I tend to agree with Elena / Simon on the matter of Bing violating the terms of the license / our copyright (whichever of the two). Whatever they did, I would say it's fair they take something back from OSM, they should just have said so. For the huge boost they gave to OSM, we should cut them some slack though. And what were 'we' going to do about it anyway? (That's a rhetoric question here, but we can follow up on legal-talk) I am still interested in instances of systematic (ab)use of Bing image tiles in OSM apps, and what your opinion is on use /abuse in the Imagery Analyzer[1]. This could impact our relation with Bing (which, according to the press, is just peachy). [1] http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/ -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PublicEarth and their Terms of Use
I wonder if Google is going to change their terms of use now they are shedding their major map data providers[1][2]. Being liberated from their terms of use – for now, in the US only – Google is free to conjure up any terms of use for their map data they like. Their 'Google Maps/Earth Terms of Service' still prohibit Google Maps users from creating any derivative work[3] - which a project such as PublicEarth certainly seems to be trying to do. In that way they are in much the same kind of trouble as GeoNames[4]. They seem not to care too much themselves though[5]. [1] http://blumenthals.com/blog/2008/09/19/google-maps-now-using-teleatlas-data-exclusively/ [2] http://blumenthals.com/blog/2009/10/12/google-replaces-tele-atlas-data-in-us-with-google-data/ [3] http://www.google.com/intl/en_us/help/terms_maps.html - see 2(b) [4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geonames [5] http://forum.geonames.org/gforum/posts/list/262.page martijn van exel http://schaaltreinen.nl/ twitter / skype: mvexel flickr: rhodes On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Tim Waters wrote: Then there's the nice issue of making a database from users identifying locations based on Google Maps. You mean that issue nobody except OSM seems to care about ;-) If they'd be using OSM, would they have to CC-BY-SA all their data? [Is that why the aren't?] I don't think the business will fly but it's worth a try. It's one of these things that I'd never attempt because I'd think it is so obvious how I'm trying to siphon off community knowledge and not let the community use that knowledge - but quite a few businesses thrive on that and I can literally hear armies of PublicEarth fanboys cry out how cool is that!. Bet they have some kind of iPhone app to go along with it. Bye Frederik ___ 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] SOTM legal talks
My thoughts: I think a debate of some kind will be preferable over a one-sided presentation of the state of affairs or even the process. This has been a hotly debated topic over the last period, I believe some format involving the audience is therefore called for. If we're going to involve Rufus and Jordan, 1hr might not even be enough time. It is complicated business we're dealing with and most in the audience will need some introduction (say 20 or even 30mins). Someone in the legal WG explaining: * Key differences between current and envisaged license. * Key arguments for changing over * Timeline: where are we, where will we be 3m, 6m, 1y from now * What can you do? What is expected of you? I know most of these topics have been dealt with extensively on the lists and on the wiki, but if we want a lively debate involving the audience, we will require this refresher course. That would leave about 30-40mins for a debate. That can only work if we have good moderation around a couple of well chosen topic, I think no more than three, allowing 10-15 mins per topic. If we plan this before lunch or at the end of the day (I'd prefer the former, a heavyweight topic at the end of the day will not go down well) we can have informal discussion afterwards. Take care, martijn van exel -+- mve...@gmail.com -+- http://www.schaaltreinen.nl/ On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 01:24, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Hi We, the legal working group have been asked as a result of a chat in the SOTM working group call (which mike and I were also on) to propose talk(s) about the license at SOTM. Today in our call we brainstormed a little around a few ideas and we thought it would be good to flesh them out here and see what you guys think might work, or not. So here are some ideas to think around, or if you have your own please chime in. We can do these, some combination, all of them, or whatever. We'd like your help in thinking what the best things to do are 1) A high level, simple, talk for the business day on rough use cases on the data and best practise. Something like you can use OSM data but make sure you don't mix it with proprietary data, make sure you attribute OSM. This wouldn't be a perfect talk, but would give businesses and people looking to get involved with OSM a high level introduction without getting too scary 2) A talk at the main OSM conf days about the PROCESS of the legal working group. How often we meet, who we are, how a meeting goes, what we discuss, who we talk to, what the minutes look like, how to get involved... This is just about how we work, not the subject matter to give people a better insight in to what goes on. 3) A debate at the main OSM conf. A panel of key members of the license working group plus jordan and rufus. It lasts an hour. 15 minutes are brief introductions and points of view from the panel members and then 45 minutes of open debate on any license issue with a moderator. This might be before lunch or a break so people can continue discussing afterward. 4) The same as (3) but with a _structured_ debate. Say 4 main topics and 10 minutes debate on each, or 3 topics of 15 minutes each. Something like that so that rather than debate about anything we debate some key issues to make sure they are covered. Remember these are only ideas to be discussed here, not our solid plans. Thoughts? Best Steve ___ 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] SOTM legal talks
I believe we should. My initial thought was to focus on a discussion, but thinking about it more I believe an introduction of sorts by someone in the legal WG would make it more powerful. martijn van exel -+- mve...@gmail.com -+- http://www.schaaltreinen.nl/ On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 21:12, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: On 12 May 2009, at 12:02, Martijn van Exel wrote: My thoughts: I think a debate of some kind will be preferable over a one-sided presentation of the state of affairs or even the process. it's not an either-or, we can do both :-) This has been a hotly debated topic over the last period, I believe some format involving the audience is therefore called for. If we're going to involve Rufus and Jordan, 1hr might not even be enough time. It is complicated business we're dealing with and most in the audience will need some introduction (say 20 or even 30mins). Someone in the legal WG explaining: * Key differences between current and envisaged license. * Key arguments for changing over * Timeline: where are we, where will we be 3m, 6m, 1y from now * What can you do? What is expected of you? I know most of these topics have been dealt with extensively on the lists and on the wiki, but if we want a lively debate involving the audience, we will require this refresher course. That would leave about 30-40mins for a debate. That can only work if we have good moderation around a couple of well chosen topic, I think no more than three, allowing 10-15 mins per topic. If we plan this before lunch or at the end of the day (I'd prefer the former, a heavyweight topic at the end of the day will not go down well) we can have informal discussion afterwards. Take care, martijn van exel -+- mve...@gmail.com -+- http://www.schaaltreinen.nl/ On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 01:24, SteveC st...@asklater.com wrote: Hi We, the legal working group have been asked as a result of a chat in the SOTM working group call (which mike and I were also on) to propose talk(s) about the license at SOTM. Today in our call we brainstormed a little around a few ideas and we thought it would be good to flesh them out here and see what you guys think might work, or not. So here are some ideas to think around, or if you have your own please chime in. We can do these, some combination, all of them, or whatever. We'd like your help in thinking what the best things to do are 1) A high level, simple, talk for the business day on rough use cases on the data and best practise. Something like you can use OSM data but make sure you don't mix it with proprietary data, make sure you attribute OSM. This wouldn't be a perfect talk, but would give businesses and people looking to get involved with OSM a high level introduction without getting too scary 2) A talk at the main OSM conf days about the PROCESS of the legal working group. How often we meet, who we are, how a meeting goes, what we discuss, who we talk to, what the minutes look like, how to get involved... This is just about how we work, not the subject matter to give people a better insight in to what goes on. 3) A debate at the main OSM conf. A panel of key members of the license working group plus jordan and rufus. It lasts an hour. 15 minutes are brief introductions and points of view from the panel members and then 45 minutes of open debate on any license issue with a moderator. This might be before lunch or a break so people can continue discussing afterward. 4) The same as (3) but with a _structured_ debate. Say 4 main topics and 10 minutes debate on each, or 3 topics of 15 minutes each. Something like that so that rather than debate about anything we debate some key issues to make sure they are covered. Remember these are only ideas to be discussed here, not our solid plans. Thoughts? Best Steve ___ 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 Best Steve ___ 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] Tracing from Aerial Imagery
Hi, Question 1 - is that what Ed said? I believe that is in fact what he has said. It surprised me, because it leaves a lot of room for debate, and thats why... And question 2 - does it make sense, legally? ...I think this could be dangerous waters in a legal sense. I have been living in Amsterdam for 18 years, so you could argue that at least all the neighborhoods I've lived in, shopped in, visited close friends in and went to school in on a regular basis will be very familiar to me - which they actually are. This comprises roughly half of the city for which I'd for example know any street name just looking at an aerial photograph or a blind map. I use this knowledge on a day-to-day basis when OpenStreetMapping[1] - but how would this be acknowledged in the license Google supposedly has with their aerial imagery suppliers? [1] Of course, for anything I add or modify, I'll have the traces to back up that I've been there. And question 3 - so I am allowed to trace my house, and my neighbour's, and my workplace, and the bakery I visit every morning, and my birthplace, and my parent's house...? This remains a question for me as well. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
