Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 3:04 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: If it were any different, you could team up with a co-publisher, publish your ODbL Produced Works to him and he forwards them to the world without you ever having to release anything. It would be a loophole that demands quick fixing ;) Is this a valid (i.e., legal) interpretation of the word publish? My interpretation is that you make a work available to the general public for it to be considered as publishing (hence the etymology of publish which means to make public). So, conveying your work to a another entity and not the general public does not count as publishing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 22.07.2012 00:22, Paul Norman wrote: If CC4 comes out with such indiscrimante inclusion of database rights then my guess is that it will either be automatically impossible to licene Produced Works under CC, or we will have to explicitly disallow it. I'm not sure who you mean by we in that statement. If ODbL allowed produced works under CC4 the only people who could disallow it would be ODC with a license upgrade. OSMF couldn't stop produced works under CC4 licenses. The release of Produced Works under a CC license including database rights, and with that the danger of a complete and systematic reverse engineering under a CC license, would undermine one of the pillars of ODbL - the requirement to share a database from which Produced Works are made. I would estimate that ODC have something against that, and would react in some way. I don't know if the issue would be a big problem for us. It's possible that we just say: Oh well, if you think you need our data under CC4 then here you go. - we could even choose to dual-license at the source. That would weaken our share-alike quite a bit as everyone would use the license that requires them to share the least. A routing web site that operates on a clever enhanced routing tree would choose CC-BY-SA so they only have to release individual results and not the whole database; a publisher would choose ODbL so that they only have to release the database but not allow copying of the map. If we wanted to stop it, then the following actions could be possible: * lean on ODC to release new anti-Produced-Works-with-database-rights license; * execute CT license change procedure to change to homemade ODbL-with-extras license; * define that anything allowing the automated re-extraction of our data with less than x% precision loss is a derivative database and never a produced work -- 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] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 22.07.2012 08:43, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: So, conveying your work to a another entity and not the general public does not count as publishing. I think that as far as viral licenses are concerned, the public is anyone who is not yourself, or part of your own organisation. I think that the CC licenses often use distribute or publicly perform... which makes this a bit clearer, but ODbL also contains the definition: “Publicly” – means to Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant). 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
[OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi legal-talk, I have a couple of questions about the use of map images, which I understand to be ODbL Produced Works, in Wikipedia. I've tried to find answers on the OSM wiki but I haven't seen anything addressing them. 1. The attribution requirement. ODbL says: 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. Now the usual way to provide attribution notices on Wikipedia images is to include them on the File page about the image (for example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rondebosch_OSM_map_small.svg) but not in every article where the image is used. A plain reading of the license text seems to indicate that that would not be enough, as readers who view the map on the article would not see the notice. Do we really have to include the full notice Contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL) in the caption of every use of an OSM-derived map in a Wikipedia article? 2. Derived databases. I have produced maps like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Namibia_rail_network_map.svg from OSM data (in that case the OSM data was only used for the railway lines, not for the basemap). To do so I downloaded a particular set of relations from the OSM API, ran a script to convert them to a shapefile, and then another script to generate the map. By downloading these relations and then converting them to a shapefile have I created a Derivative Database? And by uploading the map to Wikimedia Commons have I Publicly Used this database? Does this trigger section 4.6, requiring me to offer the Derivative Database to any recipient of the map (the Produced Work)? Thing is, in the past I have generally deleted these shapefiles when I'm done. If section 4.6 applies, am I now also obliged to keep these forever in case someone requests a copy? Or is it sufficient to say download relations with the following tags in the following bounding box? There seems to be a confusing relationship between section 4.4.c, which says: A Derivative Database is Publicly Used and so must comply with Section 4.4. if a Produced Work created from the Derivative Database is Publicly Used. and section 4.5.b: Using this Database, a Derivative Database, or this Database as part of a Collective Database to create a Produced Work does not create a Derivative Database for purposes of Section 4.4 Which of these clauses applies to my scenario? 3. Subsequent reuse. In the above case, if necessary I can still at least keep a copy of the shapefile and hand it out on request. But, having uploaded the map to Wikimedia Commons, does section 4.6 apply to others who reuse the map? They don't have access to the Derived Database in the first place. If I release the map as CC-BY-SA, are subsequent users required to abide by anything more than the regular attribution requirements of that license? Thanks, Adrian Frith ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 21.07.2012 20:18, Mike Dupont wrote: No. The Produced Work you create is uploaded to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA and that's all that counts. CC-BY-SA would not allow additional conditions (e.g. the making available of a source database) anyway. The Created from OdBL-licensed OSM data available here that you have to add to your Produced Work becomes, in the terms of CC-BY-SA, a copyright notice that the CC-BY-SA user is required to keep intact but that's all they have to do. Does that mean I can trace that data back into a cc-by-sa osm database? This is a point that has been discussed at length in the past three years on this mailing list and on the ODC mailing list. At times, the idea was floated to make it part of Produced Work licensing requirements that reverse engineering will bring back ODbL on the reverse-engineered database. This licensing requirement would have made it impossible to publish Produced Works under most known share-alike licenses (with the possible exception of CC-BY-SA-ND which disallows creating derived works altogehter). The currently accepted wisdom is that there exists a separate channel, apart from copyright, in which database right persists no matter what copyright license is used. This means that *if* somebody took lots and lots of CC-BY-SA-published OSM maps and reverse-engineered them into a new database, this database would then *automatically* fall under ODbL even if that was not mentioned in the CC-BY-SA product. This may sound hardly believeable to some but it is indeed not an uncommon concept. Imagine that I prepare an article about how Dyson's bagless vacuum cleaners work, and upload that to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA. Which is totally legal. Then you download the article and you go: Ha! This is CC-BY-SA so no further restrictions can be added. I will build this vacuum cleaner and flood the world with inexpensive and eco-friendly Dupont cleaners! - Sure enough, after a while Dyson will come knocking and sue you for infringement of their patent. So; the (entirely legal) publication of something under CC-BY-SA does not necessarily mean that you can do anything with it without infringing other rights. The tl;dr answer to your question is: No you cannot as far as OSMF is concerned - but whether you get away with it is probably a question of jurisdiction. (If anyone wants to pursue this discussion I would very much ask them to peruse the mailing list archives with the search term reverse engineering and read up on past discussions so that we don't have to repeat ourselves.) 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] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: (If anyone wants to pursue this discussion I would very much ask them to peruse the mailing list archives with the search term reverse engineering and read up on past discussions so that we don't have to repeat ourselves.) Ok, thanks! -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova http://flossk.org Contributor FOSM, the CC-BY-SA map of the world http://fosm.org Mozilla Rep https://reps.mozilla.org/u/h4ck3rm1k3 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi again, On 21 July 2012 20:10, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 21.07.2012 18:19, Adrian Frith wrote: Do we really have to include the full notice Contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL) in the caption of every use of an OSM-derived map in a Wikipedia article? I don't know if the legal requirement is for having the attribution directly visible but even if it is, it would be ok to have it in the bitmap rather than in the caption. Would it be a reasonable approach to mention OpenStreetMap (linked to the Wikipedia article on OSM) in the caption and then include the full ODbL notice on the file page, do you think? 3. Subsequent reuse. In the above case, if necessary I can still at least keep a copy of the shapefile and hand it out on request. But, having uploaded the map to Wikimedia Commons, does section 4.6 apply to others who reuse the map? No. The Produced Work you create is uploaded to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA and that's all that counts. CC-BY-SA would not allow additional conditions (e.g. the making available of a source database) anyway. The Created from OdBL-licensed OSM data available here that you have to add to your Produced Work becomes, in the terms of CC-BY-SA, a copyright notice that the CC-BY-SA user is required to keep intact but that's all they have to do. Does this mean that, in my scenario, the only recipient to whom I have an obligation under ODbL sec. 4.6 is the Wikimedia Foundation? Everyone else who receives it receives it from WMF under CC-BY-SA and they have no claim on me? Thanks, Adrian ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
On 21.07.2012 20:10, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 21.07.2012 18:19, Adrian Frith wrote: Do we really have to include the full notice Contains information from OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database License (ODbL) in the caption of every use of an OSM-derived map in a Wikipedia article? I don't know if the legal requirement is for having the attribution directly visible but even if it is, it would be ok to have it in the bitmap rather than in the caption. That's hardly practical. The images as included in the articles have sizes like 220*128 pixels. There is not enough space to readably add the required attribution without covering huge parts of the actual image content. If the ODbL doesn't unambiguously allow attribution on an image description page like those used in wikis (including our own), I support augmenting the attribution community guideline to that effect. Tobias ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 21.07.2012 20:44, Adrian Frith wrote: Does this mean that, in my scenario, the only recipient to whom I have an obligation under ODbL sec. 4.6 is the Wikimedia Foundation? Everyone else who receives it receives it from WMF under CC-BY-SA and they have no claim on me? This is an interesting question. I don't think you are right though; CC-BY-SA does not work by sublicensing. For someone who downloads your image from Wikipedia, the licensor is *not* Wikipedia, but still you. This is governed by CC-BY-SA 2.0 par. 8a: Each time You distribute or publicly digitally perform the Work or a Collective Work, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Work on the same terms and conditions as the license granted to You under this License. This means that if someone downloads your map from Wikipedia, in that moment *you* offer a license on the map to whoever downloads it; and Wikipedia is not part of that chain. So I *think* that license-wise, you have at that very moment licensed the Produced Work to the downloader (even if he hasn't downloaded from you), and he can request the ODbL sources from you. If it were any different, you could team up with a co-publisher, publish your ODbL Produced Works to him and he forwards them to the world without you ever having to release anything. It would be a loophole that demands quick fixing ;) 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] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 21 July 2012 21:04, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: On 21.07.2012 20:44, Adrian Frith wrote: If it were any different, you could team up with a co-publisher, publish your ODbL Produced Works to him and he forwards them to the world without you ever having to release anything. It would be a loophole that demands quick fixing ;) Well, that was exactly what came to mind. ;) I have a further question which follows from this. I'm happy to put the OSM extracts behind my maps up on my website in future. But if I upload OSM-derived maps from Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA, with a link to the derived shapefiles on my website, and then at some point in the future I lose the derived shapefiles in, say, a hard disk failure, what happens? I can't comply with the ODbL requirements, because I no longer have the Derivative Database - but I can't force Wikimedia to take them down either, because they are entitled to distribute them under the CC-BY-SA license. Cheers, Adrian ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
Hi, On 21.07.2012 21:33, Paul Norman wrote: CC 4.0 licenses explicitly include database rights (sec. 1 (b) of draft 1). How will this work when 4.0 is published and CC BY-SA tiles include the database rights? Also an interesting question but one that would probably have to be addressed to the CC people; there are likely many works that are currently licensed under CC-BY-SA but where the database rights are not included on purpose. I cannot imagine that all these should suddenly be upgraded to include database rights without the rights holders having further say. That would be, to continue my example, as if CC4 were to suddenly include all patent rights, no matter if those who licensed something *had* those rights to begin with ;) If CC4 comes out with such indiscrimante inclusion of database rights then my guess is that it will either be automatically impossible to licene Produced Works under CC, or we will have to explicitly disallow it. 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] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia
From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 2:30 PM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL Produced Work maps in Wikipedia Hi, On 21.07.2012 21:33, Paul Norman wrote: CC 4.0 licenses explicitly include database rights (sec. 1 (b) of draft 1). How will this work when 4.0 is published and CC BY-SA tiles include the database rights? Also an interesting question but one that would probably have to be addressed to the CC people; there are likely many works that are currently licensed under CC-BY-SA but where the database rights are not included on purpose. I cannot imagine that all these should suddenly be upgraded to include database rights without the rights holders having further say. That would be, to continue my example, as if CC4 were to suddenly include all patent rights, no matter if those who licensed something *had* those rights to begin with ;) I think it's important to distinguish between the case where someone publishes another's ODbL work and doesn't have any special permissions and OSMF publishing CC tiles where they clearly can grant database rights under CC. The only precedent I'm aware of is GPL v2 - v3 with patents. The FSF has a FAQ item about this at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2OrLaterPatentLicense Clearly, if the OSMF publishes tiles under CC 4.0 it includes the DB rights where DB rights apply. The OSMF publishing CC 4 tiles is a more interesting case. An argument similar to the implied license argument the FSF argues could apply here. I think this argument would be particularly strong in the case of current CC 2.0 tiles where without an implied license you couldn't carry out what CC 2.0 allows you to do where DB rights exist. In fact, accepting the argument that has been made that CC 2.0 doesn't give you the necessary permissions where DB rights exist, it is the only way under which OSM would be usable right now, so I expect that the courts would be likely to accept that there is an implied license. It would also be strong for any CC 4 tiles published after CC 4 is released. There the OSMF would be publishing under a license knowing that the terms allow you to change to a license that includes DB rights. To avoid this OSMF would need to stop publishing CC tiles, with the possible exception of CC BY-ND which does not allow derivatives. None of this analysis for the OSMF depends on the ODbL. For someone other than the OSMF, the analysis now depends on the ODbL and exactly what it grants, particularly around any implied licenses. It may be that the ODbL does not grant sufficient permissions in which case no one should use CC licenses for works derived from ODbL works. Of course, if you're publishing in one of the many parts of the world without DB rights this is a moot point - it's all copyright and no one can stop you from publishing because of DB rights since they don't exist. If ODbL gives you the permission to publish as, say, CC BY, then you can take those tiles and do whatever you want, so long as you preserve attribution. If CC4 comes out with such indiscrimante inclusion of database rights then my guess is that it will either be automatically impossible to licene Produced Works under CC, or we will have to explicitly disallow it. I'm not sure who you mean by we in that statement. If ODbL allowed produced works under CC4 the only people who could disallow it would be ODC with a license upgrade. OSMF couldn't stop produced works under CC4 licenses. And I find some irony in getting involved into the intersection of copyright laws and other laws which apply more to information when I am doing the same at work, although not with DB rights. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
