Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Simon Poole]

As a general concern, yes, having nailed down how we attribute on the
website is a bit of a pain and from a practical view will require that
we provide the links indefinitely. And yes references to the ODbL and/or
a specific version of it (including importing ODbL data) in an agreement
could potentially cause issues, and could require going back  to the
data provider, or removing it, and we don't do that in the suggested
text for aerial imagery providers (because essentially we are asking
them to confirm that tracing does not create a derivative, so our
licence is not really relevant).

In the templates for CC BY licensed datasets we do point out that the
ODbL 1.0 requires open access or parallel distribution, but I wouldn't
feel uncomfortable leaving these as is with any licence change that
maintains such properties (and moving to a licence that doesn't would
seem to be rather unlikely). I suppose you could strike "with the
understanding that the Open Database License 1.0 requires open access or
parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap data" however that might be a
very hard sell.

Note that we have a similar situation with that the CTs only limit the
licences we can change to "open" ones, in practical terms however we
wouldn't be able to change to one that doesn't provide attribution.

Simon


Am 07.04.2017 um 15:47 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
> Hi Simon, Kathleen, all,
>
> Is there any concern that the specific exemptions for cc-by 4 and some
> extent 2/3, which specifically mention the attribution method and URL,
> license and version number, will cause an issue should the means of
> OSM attribution or the license change (even a version number bump) in
> the future?
>
> I fear that as written, any changes to any of the above would make
> these exemptions non-valid anymore and data contributed under them
> could potentially be candidates for removal.
>
> The generic waiver seems better.
>
> It is not clear to me why there are different versions either if the
> generic waiver applies to the same cc-* licenses as the two version
> specific references.
>
> Cheers
> Blake
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>> Sorry this took so long, I've added suggested wording here
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
>>
>> Thanks again to Kathleen Lu for drafting this.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Simon Poole:
>>
>> The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it, no need for me to
>> climb out on a limb :-). I'll ask for an opinion internally and get back
>> to you.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:23 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>>
>> Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?
>>
>> United States
>>
>> Cheers
>> blake
>>
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>>
>> In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
>> seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
>> licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
>> issues that require going back to the licensor.
>>
>> Simon, can you give an example of language you think would be best for this?
>>
>> Something like:
>>
>> "Specific permission is granted to use this imagery for digitizing
>> data into OpenStreetMap and the resulting OpenStreetMap data to be be
>> released under the OSM project's license of choice."
>>
>> Is that what you have in mind?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Blake
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> Blake Girardot
>> Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
>> skype: jblakegirardot
>> HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Kathleen Lu]

Hi Blake,
Sorry for dropping this thread. Which generic waiver exactly are you
referring to?
The purpose of these templates is for data providers who are concerned
about attribution being provided properly. It may be that some providers do
not care, in which case a less specific waiver may work.
Best,
Kathleen

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:49 PM Blake Girardot HOT/OSM <
blake.girar...@hotosm.org> wrote:

> Hi Simon, Kathleen, all,
>
> Is there any concern that the specific exemptions for cc-by 4 and some
> extent 2/3, which specifically mention the attribution method and URL,
> license and version number, will cause an issue should the means of
> OSM attribution or the license change (even a version number bump) in
> the future?
>
> I fear that as written, any changes to any of the above would make
> these exemptions non-valid anymore and data contributed under them
> could potentially be candidates for removal.
>
> The generic waiver seems better.
>
> It is not clear to me why there are different versions either if the
> generic waiver applies to the same cc-* licenses as the two version
> specific references.
>
> Cheers
> Blake
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> > Sorry this took so long, I've added suggested wording here
> >
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
> >
> > Thanks again to Kathleen Lu for drafting this.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > Am 23.01.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Simon Poole:
> >
> > The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it, no need for me to
> > climb out on a limb :-). I'll ask for an opinion internally and get back
> > to you.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > Am 23.01.2017 um 23:23 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> >
> > Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?
> >
> > United States
> >
> > Cheers
> > blake
> >
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> >
> > In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
> > seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
> > licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
> > issues that require going back to the licensor.
> >
> > Simon, can you give an example of language you think would be best for
> this?
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > "Specific permission is granted to use this imagery for digitizing
> > data into OpenStreetMap and the resulting OpenStreetMap data to be be
> > released under the OSM project's license of choice."
> >
> > Is that what you have in mind?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Blake
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > Blake Girardot
> > Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
> > skype: jblakegirardot
> > HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
> >
> > ___
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 
> Blake Girardot
> Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
> skype: jblakegirardot
> HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
> Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
> BE A PART OF HOT'S MICRO GRANTS: https://donate.hotosm.org/
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Blake Girardot HOT/OSM]

Hi Simon, Kathleen, all,

Is there any concern that the specific exemptions for cc-by 4 and some
extent 2/3, which specifically mention the attribution method and URL,
license and version number, will cause an issue should the means of
OSM attribution or the license change (even a version number bump) in
the future?

I fear that as written, any changes to any of the above would make
these exemptions non-valid anymore and data contributed under them
could potentially be candidates for removal.

The generic waiver seems better.

It is not clear to me why there are different versions either if the
generic waiver applies to the same cc-* licenses as the two version
specific references.

Cheers
Blake



On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> Sorry this took so long, I've added suggested wording here
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
>
> Thanks again to Kathleen Lu for drafting this.
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it, no need for me to
> climb out on a limb :-). I'll ask for an opinion internally and get back
> to you.
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:23 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
> Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?
>
> United States
>
> Cheers
> blake
>
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
> In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
> seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
> licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
> issues that require going back to the licensor.
>
> Simon, can you give an example of language you think would be best for this?
>
> Something like:
>
> "Specific permission is granted to use this imagery for digitizing
> data into OpenStreetMap and the resulting OpenStreetMap data to be be
> released under the OSM project's license of choice."
>
> Is that what you have in mind?
>
> Cheers,
> Blake
>
>
>
>
> 
> Blake Girardot
> Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
> skype: jblakegirardot
> HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>



-- 

Blake Girardot
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
skype: jblakegirardot
HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
BE A PART OF HOT'S MICRO GRANTS: https://donate.hotosm.org/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Blake Girardot HOT/OSM]

On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 9:03 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> Sorry this took so long, I've added suggested wording here
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
>
> Thanks again to Kathleen Lu for drafting this.
>
> Simon

Thank you very much Simon and Kathleen!

Cheers
Blake


>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
> The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it, no need for me to
> climb out on a limb :-). I'll ask for an opinion internally and get back
> to you.
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:23 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
> Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?
>
> United States
>
> Cheers
> blake
>
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>
> In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
> seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
> licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
> issues that require going back to the licensor.
>
> Simon, can you give an example of language you think would be best for this?
>
> Something like:
>
> "Specific permission is granted to use this imagery for digitizing
> data into OpenStreetMap and the resulting OpenStreetMap data to be be
> released under the OSM project's license of choice."
>
> Is that what you have in mind?
>
> Cheers,
> Blake
>
>
>
>
> 
> Blake Girardot
> Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
> skype: jblakegirardot
> HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
>
> ___
> 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
>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>



-- 

Blake Girardot
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
skype: jblakegirardot
HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
BE A PART OF HOT'S MICRO GRANTS: https://donate.hotosm.org/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Simon Poole]

Sorry this took so long, I've added suggested wording here
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates

Thanks again to Kathleen Lu for drafting this.

Simon


Am 23.01.2017 um 23:47 schrieb Simon Poole:
> The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it, no need for me to
> climb out on a limb :-). I'll ask for an opinion internally and get back
> to you.
>
> Simon
>
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 23:23 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>>> Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?
>>>
>> United States
>>
>> Cheers
>> blake
>>
>>
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
 On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
> seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
> licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
> issues that require going back to the licensor.
>
 Simon, can you give an example of language you think would be best for 
 this?

 Something like:

 "Specific permission is granted to use this imagery for digitizing
 data into OpenStreetMap and the resulting OpenStreetMap data to be be
 released under the OSM project's license of choice."

 Is that what you have in mind?

 Cheers,
 Blake




 
 Blake Girardot
 Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
 skype: jblakegirardot
 HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org

 ___
 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



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] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Blake Girardot HOT/OSM]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 8:27 PM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> On Saturday 21 January 2017, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote:
>> > However care should be taken that the mapper is in a solid
>> > situation when using the data independent of the question if
>> > his/her work actually makes it into the main OSM database.  In the
>> > past this has often been a problem with specific permissions for
>> > restricted access data.  License terms or terms of use of a service
>> > should not require mappers to take additional legal risks.
>>
>> I do not understand what you saying here. Could you explain this a
>> bit more please?
>
> In the past there have been some pretty hairy license terms used on
> propriatary images that were offered for use for mapping in OSM by
> their owners - in particular i was thinking about:
>
> http://imagery.openstreetmap.fr/airbus-ds/Web%20Licence%20for%20Non-Commercial%20Use%20with%20OSM.pdf
>
> Significant parts of such terms are likely not really enforcable anyway
> but if they were this would have quite significant implications on the
> mapper using such images and possibly even on the OSM data user - in
> this case think for example about offline use of the imagery (would
> clash with the internet user concept) or use of OSM data in production
> of terrain models (would clash with the exclusion of those from
> derivative works).
>
> If the image owner wants to license it under CC-BY-NC anyway independent
> of OSM, a workable approach could be to waive rights on digitized data
> (as Simon suggested) and waive the NC clause for activities that are
> related to the process of digitizing data for use in OSM.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>

Very helpful, thank you very much for the follow up example and explanation!

Best wishes,
blake

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 21 January 2017, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote:
> > However care should be taken that the mapper is in a solid
> > situation when using the data independent of the question if
> > his/her work actually makes it into the main OSM database.  In the
> > past this has often been a problem with specific permissions for
> > restricted access data.  License terms or terms of use of a service
> > should not require mappers to take additional legal risks.
>
> I do not understand what you saying here. Could you explain this a
> bit more please?

In the past there have been some pretty hairy license terms used on 
propriatary images that were offered for use for mapping in OSM by 
their owners - in particular i was thinking about:

http://imagery.openstreetmap.fr/airbus-ds/Web%20Licence%20for%20Non-Commercial%20Use%20with%20OSM.pdf

Significant parts of such terms are likely not really enforcable anyway 
but if they were this would have quite significant implications on the 
mapper using such images and possibly even on the OSM data user - in 
this case think for example about offline use of the imagery (would 
clash with the internet user concept) or use of OSM data in production 
of terrain models (would clash with the exclusion of those from 
derivative works).

If the image owner wants to license it under CC-BY-NC anyway independent 
of OSM, a workable approach could be to waive rights on digitized data 
(as Simon suggested) and waive the NC clause for activities that are 
related to the process of digitizing data for use in OSM.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Simon Poole]

The LWG has 3 US based legal professionals on it, no need for me to
climb out on a limb :-). I'll ask for an opinion internally and get back
to you.

Simon


Am 23.01.2017 um 23:23 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>> Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?
>>
> United States
>
> Cheers
> blake
>
>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
 In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
 seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
 licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
 issues that require going back to the licensor.

>>> Simon, can you give an example of language you think would be best for this?
>>>
>>> Something like:
>>>
>>> "Specific permission is granted to use this imagery for digitizing
>>> data into OpenStreetMap and the resulting OpenStreetMap data to be be
>>> released under the OSM project's license of choice."
>>>
>>> Is that what you have in mind?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Blake
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> Blake Girardot
>>> Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
>>> skype: jblakegirardot
>>> HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Blake Girardot HOT/OSM]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
> Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?
>

United States

Cheers
blake


> Simon
>
>
> Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>>> In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
>>> seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
>>> licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
>>> issues that require going back to the licensor.
>>>
>> Simon, can you give an example of language you think would be best for this?
>>
>> Something like:
>>
>> "Specific permission is granted to use this imagery for digitizing
>> data into OpenStreetMap and the resulting OpenStreetMap data to be be
>> released under the OSM project's license of choice."
>>
>> Is that what you have in mind?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Blake
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> Blake Girardot
>> Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
>> skype: jblakegirardot
>> HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>



-- 

Blake Girardot
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
skype: jblakegirardot
HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
BE A PART OF HOT'S MICRO GRANTS: https://donate.hotosm.org/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Simon Poole]

Blake where is the imagery provider in question based?

Simon


Am 23.01.2017 um 22:01 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>> In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
>> seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
>> licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
>> issues that require going back to the licensor.
>>
> Simon, can you give an example of language you think would be best for this?
>
> Something like:
>
> "Specific permission is granted to use this imagery for digitizing
> data into OpenStreetMap and the resulting OpenStreetMap data to be be
> released under the OSM project's license of choice."
>
> Is that what you have in mind?
>
> Cheers,
> Blake
>
>
>
>
> 
> Blake Girardot
> Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
> skype: jblakegirardot
> HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org
>
> ___
> 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] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Blake Girardot HOT/OSM]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Simon Poole  wrote:
>

> In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
> seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
> licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
> issues that require going back to the licensor.
>

Simon, can you give an example of language you think would be best for this?

Something like:

"Specific permission is granted to use this imagery for digitizing
data into OpenStreetMap and the resulting OpenStreetMap data to be be
released under the OSM project's license of choice."

Is that what you have in mind?

Cheers,
Blake





Blake Girardot
Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, TM3 Project Manager
skype: jblakegirardot
HOT Core Team Contact: i...@hotosm.org

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Simon Poole]

Am 21.01.2017 um 22:42 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> ...
> Is it enough to get a permission to distribute it under ODbL? Wouldn't
> it also be needed to have a permission for DbCL? The DbCL states that
> the stored components don't have a foreign copyright. So contracts, which
> tell us "you can distribute under ODbL only" wouldn't be valid for DbCl,
> which is part of OpenStreetMap's use of ODbL (facts are free etc.).
> ...

I believe we (OSM) are taking the position that individual (geo-)facts
are not protected by copyright and that they can only have protection as
part of a database or a collection. I suspect anybody claiming something
else would have a bit of an uphill battle essentially everywhere.
Naturally we've been through all the arguments that tracing an object
could have a creative element etc etc etc, but in the case of tracing
from imagery any such rights, if they exist, would clearly be owned by
the OSM contributor, not the provider of the imagery.

The ODbL is a bit more general and needs to allow for situations in
which the individual elements of a database -do- have an individual
creative element that needs to be licensed, for example photographs and
similar.

In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
issues that require going back to the licensor.

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] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Tobias Wendorff]

Am Sa, 21.01.2017, 16:04 schrieb Simon Poole:
> I've pointed this our before. but anyway: we don't really care that much
> about the imagery licence as such as long as we are allowed to display
> it in the usual OSM tools. The real question are the rights in digitized
> vector data from that imagery.

We've got an equal problem with aerial imagery by "Regionalverband Ruhr"
in Germany. They're releasing their imagery under CC-BY-SA 4.0. Since I
was hired for a project, I discussed the licensing problem. They haven't
been aware of those licensing problems. They just want their images
(the files) to be protected by CC-BY-SA, but they allow (and want) OSM
to derive geodata from it.

But I also know the other side:
German NSOs, which released aerial imagery under OpenData gov license,
do not allow to derive data under another license without explicite
"BY" tag in any final product. This, of course, makes the license
incompatible to ODbL (which has been discussed quiet a lot).

The reason for this is the protection of the investment they've made.
Of course, they're ignoring that the citizens have made the investment,
but let's don't discuss this here.

> If they insist that the digitized data is a derivative and licensed on
> the same terms as the imagery itself*, we need either explicit
> permission roughly along the lines of the contributor terms (while
> theoretically permission to distribute on ODbL 1.0 terms is enough, that
> implies that the data may have to be removed on any licence change, a
> lot of work that we probably don't want to have looming over us), or we
> need waivers on specific incompatible terms of the licence. The later
> requires that we determine exactly what needs to waived, something that
> we (aka LWG) haven't done for CC BY-NC in any version.

Is it enough to get a permission to distribute it under ODbL? Wouldn't
it also be needed to have a permission for DbCL? The DbCL states that
the stored components don't have a foreign copyright. So contracts, which
tell us "you can distribute under ODbL only" wouldn't be valid for DbCl,
which is part of OpenStreetMap's use of ODbL (facts are free etc.).

Best regards,
Tobias


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Simon Poole]

I've pointed this our before. but anyway: we don't really care that much
about the imagery licence as such as long as we are allowed to display
it in the usual OSM tools. The real question are the rights in digitized
vector data from that imagery.

The best situation IMHO is if the provider of the imagery clearly states
that they waive any rights in such digitized data (which depending on
jurisdiction they might not have in any case).

If they insist that the digitized data is a derivative and licensed on
the same terms as the imagery itself*, we need either explicit
permission roughly along the lines of the contributor terms (while
theoretically permission to distribute on ODbL 1.0 terms is enough, that
implies that the data may have to be removed on any licence change, a
lot of work that we probably don't want to have looming over us), or we
need waivers on specific incompatible terms of the licence. The later
requires that we determine exactly what needs to waived, something that
we (aka LWG) haven't done for CC BY-NC in any version.

Simon

* this is naturally just one of many variants possible, but likely the
most common. Commercial imagery typically has terms of use that cover
digitizing and needs to be considered separately.

Am 21.01.2017 um 03:10 schrieb Blake Girardot HOT/OSM:
> Greetings,
>
> We are working with an imagery provider who is going to release some
> of their imagery under cc-by-nc 4.0, and with a specific allowance for
> it to be used for digitizing into OSM.
>
> Their main goal as I understand it, is to make sure their imagery is
> cc-by-nc 4.0, but they are fine if it is digitized into OSM, knowing
> full well the digitized data is released under ODbL 1.0 and
> understanding how OSM provides attribution.
>
> Does anyone see any problem with this, or have specific suggestions to
> make sure their OSM specific allowance is clear enough?
>
> Cheers
> blake
>




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] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Blake Girardot HOT/OSM]

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> However care should be taken that the mapper is in a solid situation
> when using the data independent of the question if his/her work
> actually makes it into the main OSM database.  In the past this has
> often been a problem with specific permissions for restricted access
> data.  License terms or terms of use of a service should not require
> mappers to take additional legal risks.

I do not understand what you saying here. Could you explain this a bit
more please?

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery CC-BY-NC 4.0 + OSM Specific allowance

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 21 January 2017, Blake Girardot HOT/OSM wrote:
>
> We are working with an imagery provider who is going to release some
> of their imagery under cc-by-nc 4.0, and with a specific allowance
> for it to be used for digitizing into OSM.

Our general aim should be to get image providers to release their 
imagery as open data.  If that fails we can of course also use images 
with any other license if this license specifically allows the use in 
OSM.

However care should be taken that the mapper is in a solid situation 
when using the data independent of the question if his/her work 
actually makes it into the main OSM database.  In the past this has 
often been a problem with specific permissions for restricted access 
data.  License terms or terms of use of a service should not require 
mappers to take additional legal risks.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk