Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. We as a community can't verify this. http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf which we can't verify as authentic. But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. That is, if OSM were as rigorous as Debian we wouldn't allow this as it is in violation of point 8 of the DFSG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines I would love to have these issues proved unfounded, but until then, I don't use bing at all, and am hoping the areas of OSM I'm interested in don't become too polluted by bing data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 19:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. All we have is SteveC's word that this is what happened, to the best of my knowledge Bing themselves near released anything definitive on their own website. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 10:55, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: It is my understanding that Bing essentially said to OSM yes you can upload to OSM. We as a community can't verify this. http://www.microsoft.com/maps/product/terms.html mentions nothing, all we have is http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf which we can't verify as authentic. The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's perfect, but better than nothing. I think it could have been handled better at Microsoft's end though, i.e. directly posting the Terms PDF. But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at this case as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
On 11 July 2011 11:30, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at this case as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_copyright_issues Richard Fairhurst wrote a good piece on the legals around aerial imagery in 2009 Aerial photography, cock fighting and vodka bottles - http://www.systemed.net/blog/legacy/100.html / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing
What is worrying me is that the LWG (=OSMF=COMMUNITY) requires any contributor (us) to sign up using a CT, where BING can get away with a simple blog page. I *can* understand that, because it's not OSM that is addressed in this blog, but the individuals (us) making contributions. The permission to use BING imagery is given to us in a vague blog entry on the page below. http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing- maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx We had better print this page and keep it's URL firmly ! In order to safeguard the OSM community, I want to suggest that the LWG pays as much attention to BING complying with our CT as to the us (=community) and demand a firm license addressing each OSM user, signed up to OSM to ensure it's legal position for the time he is using BING ! As I see it now, this blog is of no legal value, and any user might be sued for license violation. Not to speak about the consequences once BING imagery based data needs to be removed. The fact that Steve Coast actually pays his home with BINGS salary, does not create much of an insurance to us. Giant companies as Google and Microsoft are known to change their opinions fast as soon as their interest changes and no-one is there to protect us when things go wrong. GEODATA is a big business and I would not be surprised if MS one day decides that OSM is theirs, due to more then a substantial part is based on BING imagery, without sufficient legal foundation. I trust MS to have the legal force to make sure it takes less than a week to accomplish that. Gert On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The official Bing blog: http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing- maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's perfect, but better than nothing. I think it could have been handled better at Microsoft's end though, i.e. directly posting the Terms PDF. But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data. The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. I can see that the assumption of tracing aerial photography to create a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at this case as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_c opyright_issues ___ 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] Bing
Am 11.07.2011 12:10, schrieb Grant Slater: The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.) The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM. . The last time I read Nearmaps ToS I believe they were in fact -not- claiming any rights in traces from their imagery, but requiring you to enter in to a contract with them (via acceptance of the ToS) that you would only license the data you generated in a specific way. But I might be mistaken. In any case as has been discussed here before, the level of protection of photographic imagery differs so strongly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, that it doesn't seem wise to me to bet on there being no rights from the original source remaining in traces. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
