Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a legal imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? How many words do I have to change in a short poem until the poem is no longer considered the original, but my own? More to the point, does moving a single point by a hands breadth earn any rights to the editor? Here is the post office in Dubin, Ohio, imported from GNIS, then moved a few centimeters a few months later. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/357526575/history You mean where someone tweaked the position of some facts to make it look nicer? Making an artistic representation of fact already available. There are lots of situations where map data becomes artistic maps, you don't need to edit a map in illustrator to make it a work of art. -- /emj ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-08 16:14, Anthony wrote: You're all missing the point, though. My contention is not that OSM is a database of non-geographical facts (*). My contention is that it consists of the *expression* of facts. Just do be sure that I don't misunderstand you again: This way: way id=115031489 timestamp=2011-05-26T23:47:10Z uid=74617 user=JohnSmith visible=true version=1 changeset=8258292 nd ref=1300468480/ nd ref=1301344689/ nd ref=1301344690/ and one of the ways I've posted before, and a Mapnik excerpt showing this way, and for example a written way description (On the last junction before Kempsey Airport take the road to the left, follow its course southeast and later northeast and after about 800m you will reach the end of the hamlet.) are all different expressions of the same fact, right? If not, I'm sorry that I can't follow you. Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-09 18:02, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Andreas Perstinger This way: way id=115031489 timestamp=2011-05-26T23:47:10Z uid=74617 user=JohnSmith visible=true version=1 changeset=8258292 nd ref=1300468480/ nd ref=1301344689/ nd ref=1301344690/ and one of the ways I've posted before, and a Mapnik excerpt showing this way, and for example a written way description (On the last junction before Kempsey Airport take the road to the left, follow its course southeast and later northeast and after about 800m you will reach the end of the hamlet.) are all different expressions of the same fact, right? They're all different (derivative) expressions of mostly the same facts (with an s). So there won't be a problem if on day X the version of John Smith will be removed from the database and on day X+2 I would enter one of the versions I've shown, right? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
So there won't be a problem if on day X the version of John Smith will be removed from the database and on day X+2 I would enter one of the versions I've shown, right? Right, under the assumption both cannot be copyrighted, not even under OdBL, being *fact*. If they *are* copyrighted, no you cannot replace one by the other. ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote: The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts is, quite frankly, laughable. I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a non-geographical fact in the database. Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote: On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote: The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts is, quite frankly, laughable. I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a non-geographical fact in the database. Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. The whole craft section, lots of the non_physical stuff. And I'm sure there's more. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Geo-referenced facts? And, all of your examples other even less potential to be a protected work than your typical way. Simon Am 08.07.2011 09:10, schrieb Maarten Deen: On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote: On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote: The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts is, quite frankly, laughable. I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a non-geographical fact in the database. Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. The whole craft section, lots of the non_physical stuff. And I'm sure there's more. Regards, Maarten ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Maarten Deen wrote: Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. Sure they are. If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry sign at a certain lat/long. If I walk a bit further along, facing the other way, there's a one way sign at another lat/long. From those two geographical facts[1], I can deduce that a particular road is oneway. Therefore I tagged http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/1058809 with oneway=yes. Same goes for turn restrictions, maximum speeds, and certainly over here, highway tags. The one major exception in the OSM database is administrative boundaries. cheers Richard [1] ok, and also the fact I get shouted at when I cycle up it the wrong way -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-license-change-effect-on-un-tagged-nodes-tp6541123p6561846.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-08 09:10, Maarten Deen wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:59:26 +0200, Andreas Perstinger wrote: On 2011-07-08 01:43, Anthony wrote: The idea that the OSM database just reproduces geographical facts is, quite frankly, laughable. I would like to join the laughter so please show me an example of a non-geographical fact in the database. Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. The whole craft section, lots of the non_physical stuff. And I'm sure there's more. Yeah, I just looked out of the window and realized that the streets have no names painted on them. And there are even no boundary lines in the landscape. Man, I really should get out more often. Bye, Andreas PS: Sorry for the sarcasm but I decided that I've better things to do than nitpicking on the exact definitions of words or terms. You can spare any replies because I will just ignore them. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote: Maarten Deen wrote: Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. Sure they are. If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry sign at a certain lat/long. If I walk a bit further along, facing the other way, there's a one way sign at another lat/long. From those two geographical facts[1], I can deduce that a particular road is oneway. Therefore I tagged http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/1058809 with oneway=yes. Same goes for turn restrictions, maximum speeds, and certainly over here, highway tags. The one major exception in the OSM database is administrative boundaries. IMHO that's stretching the geographic bit very far. Sure, the fact that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention. And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the geography of the place. Regards, Maarten ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 08/07/11 10:31, Maarten Deen wrote: IMHO that's stretching the geographic bit very far. Sure, the fact that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention. And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the geography of the place. Now define road. ;-) - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:18:46 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote: Maarten Deen wrote: Turn restrictions, maximum speeds, oneway streets, even the value of the highway tag is not a geographical fact. Sure they are. If I walk about 20 yards from my front door, there's a no entry sign at a certain lat/long. If I walk a bit further along, facing the other way, there's a one way sign at another lat/long. From those two geographical facts[1], I can deduce that a particular road is oneway. Therefore I tagged http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/1058809 with oneway=yes. Same goes for turn restrictions, maximum speeds, and certainly over here, highway tags. The one major exception in the OSM database is administrative boundaries. IMHO that's stretching the geographic bit very far. Sure, the fact that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that signifies something for the road or object that's there is just convention. And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the geography of the place. -- [GG] But these are facts, this copyright discussion is not about geographic facts only, and no list of facts can be copyrighted, just the method of organization of facts can be copyrighted. The discussion is also about if the inevitable limitation/deviation from reality (be it geographic or nomenclatural or other facts), that a geodatabase such as OSM represents, can be characterized as creative work. My opinion is that as we are not intentionally deviating from reality with the intent of being creative, it cannot be a creative work and so not be copyrighted. This has been supported by a number of courts in 4-5 countries among Austria (and I think Netherlands, not sure) Some of us think that any human activity on data results in creative work that can be copyrighted. Note that this is just about the database, not about the resulting tiles or printed maps. Regards Gert Regards, Maarten ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 08/07/11 13:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing about the location or presence of a road that makes it motorway or tertiary. That is only because it is designated as such. That designation can change anytime, but by doing so you don't change the geography of the place. One bit of earth or tarmac is pretty much the same as another. What makes them a road? - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-06 23:31, John Smith wrote: On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM map or by just moving randomly some nodes.The same goes for IMHO that's a very weak protection for a cc-by-sa map. How will the ODBL help here any better? As I think I mentioned already before I don't think that ODBL will help. That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why bother about licenses at all? This is an issue for all maps and this is why map companies put in trap streets. That's only an issue if you copy blindly from any map, which I would never do. I prefer mapping in my local surroundings. So you are planning to copy from google maps then? No (see above). But I think it's more a question of morality and adhering to community guidelines. Legally I don't see any problems using informations from any map (or aerial imagery). Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why bother about licenses at all? Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem to think map content is protected under copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote: On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why bother about licenses at all? Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem to think map content is protected under copyright. But I've just showed you that there are countries where this is clearly not the case. Don't you have any case rulings in Australia about copyright in maps? I've found several in Austria and Germany so it would be surprising if these countries where the only ones. Can't you show me a case ruling where Australian judges said that map content is protected under copyright? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Simon, Andreas, all, when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork. The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the old OSM, or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether. Now if it turned out that the license change went through like a breeze, with very limited data loss that is patched up within weeks, they would become a laughing stock - like the prophet without the doom. While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage, their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for starting a fork in the first place. Needless to say, this interesting psychological situation is not a good basis for a rational argument. Or, to say it with fewer words: don't waste your time. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 16:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage, their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for starting a fork in the first place. And what is it you wish by forcing bad terms into the CT just so OSM might be able to go PD in future, although some of those abilities have been lost in the process it would seem, you seem to be a firm believer in PD, why are you settling for second best all of a sudden? I guess the thought of excessive data loss was unpalatable after all. Needless to say, this interesting psychological situation is not a good basis for a rational argument. It seems the only one basing arguments on emotive language in this thread is yourself, glass houses and not throwing stones and all that. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Frederik, I'm fully aware of JS motives and tactics and normally avoid getting sucked in to his endless threads. But it was 2 am and I was just finishing tax returns and associated book keeping. John Smith is a tiny bit more entertaining than that and I needed a short break :-) Simon Am 07.07.2011 08:58, schrieb Frederik Ramm: Simon, Andreas, all, when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork. The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the old OSM, or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether. Now if it turned out that the license change went through like a breeze, with very limited data loss that is patched up within weeks, they would become a laughing stock - like the prophet without the doom. While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage, their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for starting a fork in the first place. Needless to say, this interesting psychological situation is not a good basis for a rational argument. Or, to say it with fewer words: don't waste your time. 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Simon, Andreas, all, when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork. The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the old OSM, or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether. Frederik, I'm sure you've been paying attention an know full well that the reason fosm.org exists is because we have grave concerns about the new license. The only thing we are forking is the license, we are not forking the tagging scheme or the community or even the objectives of OSM. Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have not agreed to the CT have not consented for their content to be used in any other way. You should respect that. A main objective of OSM was to create maps that were free enough to be used by everyone. Anything that steps across the line will taint OSM with the impurity that we strived for so long to avoid. There will forever be doubt about the provenance of OSM data. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
+1 Frederik has not shown much respect for any argument nor to anyone that disagrees with the future commercialisation of OSM. (with that I means making OSM optimally fit for commercial use; disregarding the open principles that OSM started with: leaving out the Share Alike principle) I think this discussion about copyright is really valuable, seen from the perspective of copyright laws around the world, and the ongoing legal differentiation between databases filled with facts and those filled with creative works, where the latter are supposed copyrightable and the earlier are not. Legal discusiions are going on everywhere in the world, and are supported by legal cases in several places around the world confirming the distinciton between factual databases (of which the content is not copyrightable) and creative databases (copyrightble). John thinks different about this then I, though we both support continuing the CC-BY-SA forks, that I believe will change into PD one day due to the above legal interpretations. FOSM will not have deleted the data the OSM will at that time. Frederik, I believe it is way below your professional level to respond like this. Anyone is free to spend its time discusiing this issues, and ignoring it will not make them diasappear. If international copyrigth laws will change as i expect, OSM be better prepared, and not be surprised. Simon, stop scratching frederiks back. no need to apologise. Gert cetest @ fosm.org Van: 80n [mailto:80n...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Thursday, July 07, 2011 9:36 AM Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Simon, Andreas, all, when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork. The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the old OSM, or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether. Frederik, I'm sure you've been paying attention an know full well that the reason fosm.org exists is because we have grave concerns about the new license. The only thing we are forking is the license, we are not forking the tagging scheme or the community or even the objectives of OSM. Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have not agreed to the CT have not consented for their content to be used in any other way. You should respect that. A main objective of OSM was to create maps that were free enough to be used by everyone. Anything that steps across the line will taint OSM with the impurity that we strived for so long to avoid. There will forever be doubt about the provenance of OSM data. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 08:58, Frederik Ramm wrote: when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork. I know who John Smith and his fellows are and I even read their mailing list once or twice a month out of curiosity :-). Or, to say it with fewer words: don't waste your time. I can assure you I have enough time. For example I will leave now for a three hours bike ride :-). Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 08:39, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Andreas Perstinger No (see above). But I think it's more a question of morality and adhering to community guidelines. Legally I don't see any problems using informations from any map (or aerial imagery). But using information isn't the same as copying. That's why I've written using information on purpose :-). For me copying would be using the same map style (colours, symbols,...). Some jurisdictions don't allow this, mine expects a certain individual creativity. Getting information out of an imagery or a map and entering it into OSM is not copying (in the sense of producing an object identical to a given object). Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 09:35, 80n wrote: Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have not agreed to the CT have not consented for their content to be used in any other way. You should respect that. But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a legal imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 08:48, Anthony wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote: Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem to think map content is protected under copyright. But I've just showed you that there are countries where this is clearly not the case. You've done nothing of the sort. I know it's not a good idea to post a German text on a English mailing list, but the link I've posted says that in Austria a map is not protected by copyright if it just reproduces geographical facts. This is the general view of the highest court in my country. Here is one example where this general rule was applied (sorry it's again in German): http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_000/JJT_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_000.html Short summary: A map publishing company produced a map of the state Lower Austria (Oberösterreich) which showed all camping grounds within the state. The state itself was shown in another colour than the neighbouring states. Another organisation reduced the size of the map, desaturated it and published it without attribution. The plaintiff lost. Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-07 19:55, John Smith wrote: On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a legal imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? How many words do I have to change in a short poem until the poem is no longer considered the original, but my own? Thanks for your answer. No more questions. Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
+1 Gert -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Verzonden: donderdag 7 juli 2011 19:55 Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a legal imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? How many words do I have to change in a short poem until the poem is no longer considered the original, but my own? ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 07/07/11 20:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote: +1 /2 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Awesome. Can you go run that project and leave us in peace then please? Steve On 7/7/2011 12:35 AM, 80n wrote: On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org wrote: Simon, Andreas, all, when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork. The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of motivations, the most benign probably being a sincere worry about data loss - they believe that the license change is going to hurt OSM so much that they must do all they can do retain a live copy of the old OSM, or even dissuade OSMF from changing altogether. Frederik, I'm sure you've been paying attention an know full well that the reason fosm.org http://fosm.org exists is because we have grave concerns about the new license. The only thing we are forking is the license, we are not forking the tagging scheme or the community or even the objectives of OSM. Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have not agreed to the CT have not consented for their content to be used in any other way. You should respect that. A main objective of OSM was to create maps that were free enough to be used by everyone. Anything that steps across the line will taint OSM with the impurity that we strived for so long to avoid. There will forever be doubt about the provenance of OSM data. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a legal imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? How many words do I have to change in a short poem until the poem is no longer considered the original, but my own? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but perhaps you would: How far away do I have to move a node or a way so that you don't consider it yours (assuming that I would trace it from a legal imagery source or based on GPS tracks)? 50cm, 1m, 2m? More, less? How many words do I have to change in a short poem until the poem is no longer considered the original, but my own? More to the point, does moving a single point by a hands breadth earn any rights to the editor? Here is the post office in Dubin, Ohio, imported from GNIS, then moved a few centimeters a few months later. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/357526575/history ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Sorry for replying late but I had to leave for the night shift yesterday. On 2011-07-05 15:28, John Smith wrote: On 5 July 2011 23:04, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a node? If I put one additional node into the way or remove one, is that enough? The same as in an identical result, if they use the same sources then the only difference is their creative interpretation of the data sources into producing map data. Let's leave the theory and do the little experiment you suggested :-). I guess, you consider the way 115031489[1] as copyright protected, right? Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? Bye, Andreas 1 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/115031489 ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='-26' visible='true' lat='-31.07050351473609' lon='152.77789484357737' / node id='-24' visible='true' lat='-31.070982946416333' lon='152.7780923977054' / node id='-22' visible='true' lat='-31.07140597236209' lon='152.77843811742946' / node id='-20' visible='true' lat='-31.072012306269084' lon='152.77903077981358' / node id='-18' visible='true' lat='-31.072515231459942' lon='152.7799417238484' / node id='-16' visible='true' lat='-31.072712640620924' lon='152.7804795100858' / node id='-14' visible='true' lat='-31.07304165497846' lon='152.7818349509087' / node id='-12' visible='true' lat='-31.0730745563516' lon='152.7822410343941' / node id='-10' visible='true' lat='-31.073013453792427' lon='152.78268553118215' / node id='-8' visible='true' lat='-31.072933550386573' lon='152.7828995481542' / node id='-6' visible='true' lat='-31.072049908244523' lon='152.78388183117966' / node id='-4' visible='true' lat='-31.071561081404' lon='152.78424401374775' / node id='-2' visible='true' lat='-31.069803904536826' lon='152.777615791055' / way id='-29' visible='true' nd ref='-2' / nd ref='-26' / nd ref='-24' / nd ref='-22' / nd ref='-20' / nd ref='-18' / nd ref='-16' / nd ref='-14' / nd ref='-12' / nd ref='-10' / nd ref='-8' / nd ref='-6' / nd ref='-4' / /way /osm ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='-49' visible='true' lat='-31.071011148204605' lon='152.77810886054942' / node id='-47' visible='true' lat='-31.07190420050686' lon='152.7788990770615' / node id='-45' visible='true' lat='-31.072425927181033' lon='152.7797606325643' / node id='-43' visible='true' lat='-31.072726741259594' lon='152.78051243577377' / node id='-41' visible='true' lat='-31.073055755568333' lon='152.781911777514' / node id='-39' visible='true' lat='-31.073079256546816' lon='152.78223005916473' / node id='-37' visible='true' lat='-31.07299465299708' lon='152.78278979586077' / node id='-35' visible='true' lat='-31.072712640620917' lon='152.7831958793462' / node id='-33' visible='true' lat='-31.072021706764325' lon='152.78392024448226' / node id='-31' visible='true' lat='-31.071739691502458' lon='152.7840848729223' / node id='-29' visible='true' lat='-31.06975340701974' lon='152.77756862683484' / way id='-52' visible='true' nd ref='-29' / nd ref='-49' / nd ref='-47' / nd ref='-45' / nd ref='-43' / nd ref='-41' / nd ref='-39' / nd ref='-37' / nd ref='-35' / nd ref='-33' / nd ref='-31' / /way /osm ?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'? osm version='0.6' generator='JOSM' node id='-111' visible='true' lat='-31.070769336398953' lon='152.77796373509094' / node id='-109' visible='true' lat='-31.07107015571834' lon='152.7781338511456' / node id='-107' visible='true' lat='-31.07193970621209' lon='152.77894601811636' / node id='-105' visible='true' lat='-31.072301624884776' lon='152.77954416811514' / node id='-103' visible='true' lat='-31.07268234304071' lon='152.78043316169132' / node id='-101' visible='true' lat='-31.07296905570743' lon='152.78164043691808' / node id='-99' visible='true' lat='-31.073048959083444' lon='152.78217273554088' / node id='-97' visible='true' lat='-31.072983156308062' lon='152.78269954654897' / node id='-95' visible='true' lat='-31.072879751854753' lon='152.78293002636494' / node id='-93' visible='true' lat='-31.071977308216237' lon='152.78390682177584' / node id='-91' visible='true' lat='-31.072531936050165' lon='152.7800106153619' / node id='-90' visible='true' lat='-31.06986450152192' lon='152.77756862683484' / way id='-114' visible='true' nd ref='-90' / nd ref='-111' / nd ref='-109' / nd ref='-107' / nd
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
-Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 9:17 PM Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions. Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world can be classified as creative work, as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his effort, and any deviation is just imperfection and corrected once the right information is available. We aren't for the most part trying to make raster images of aerial imagery, so there is a lot of creativity that goes into making interpretations of the real world. [GG] Involuntary creativity then ! I never met a OSM mapper saying he is using his creativity to create an original view of the world. Its not just a lack in precision and perfection that makes a work creative, the creator must also have the intention to add something of himself. In terms of copyright this doesn't matter, just like if you write a few lines of whatever, you automatically receive copyright on your work. [GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use in the digital era, their application is too large and too wide, and information can be copied without loss. The application of copyright law is expensive and full of pitfalls. See what happens with movies and mp3 on P2P networks. These are outdated legal texts, and have to be redefined. In creating tiles the map I agree. Not in creating a database. In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of making it that matters and because there is human involvement that's all that matters. [GG] Is that true ??? I would reformulate that as follows: In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of human coordinated creativity that matters. Not the mere fact that there are humans involved makes it copyrighted. I think you agree with me that software is copyrighted due to the algorithms implemented, a proof of effort and creativity. It's not the output of the software that is copyrighted by the writer of the software, but the source code. The output can be copyrighted, if created by copyrighted input. OSM is the same. We have a set of algorithms and 200K+ human CPUs that as execute the algorithm defined by the community. Nothing creative there but the algorithms. Its not the output that is copyrightable. The input is the real world, be it by sometimes using media (bing) that are copyrighted as a picture, not the information it is providing. Just like art photography , you cannot copyright Marilyn Monroe on a picture, but it's the composition, exposure time, color balance, moment the picture was taken etc. BUT NOT THE PROPERTIES OF THE SUBJECT. You may conclude she is blond and has big tits without infringement of copyright. That is what we do with BING images. Gert ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 02/07/2011 17:15, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT, while B has. Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license change? I must be missing something, because I believe this discussion is a complete waste of time. Wasn't it decided years ago that tag-less nodes are irrelevant should be deleted? It's certainly what I've been doing. If users want nodes as reference points they should add a note tag with an explanation. Cheers Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Hi, Dave F. wrote: I must be missing something, because I believe this discussion is a complete waste of time. It is good that you have the modesty to assume that you're missing something rather than 10 others are completely wasting their time ;) in this case you are indeed missing (or I failed to mention explicitly) that we are talking about nodes _that are used by a way_. 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? I'm not sure of your ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? I'm not sure of your point here, since you are 1 person, not 10. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 06/07/2011 18:29, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Dave F. wrote: I must be missing something, because I believe this discussion is a complete waste of time. It is good that you have the modesty to assume that you're missing something rather than 10 others are completely wasting their time ;) in this case you are indeed missing (or I failed to mention explicitly) that we are talking about nodes _that are used by a way_. Actually, most of those ten appear to have gone off at a tangent to discuss other matters. I must be still missing the plot. If, by _used_ you mean that it's a part of the way, then *millions* of nodes have no attributes. If one of these gets moved then the whole way gets updated, making your point mute. Cheers Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-06 20:23, John Smith wrote: On 7 July 2011 04:20, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 July 2011 16:46, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: Then what about the attached alternative versions? For each version I started JOSM, opened a new layer, added the node (-31.069902030361792, 152.728383561) which is close to the beginning of the road, loaded the Bing background and traced the road. Between each session there were at least 5 minutes. If I would replace the original way with one version, would that be a copyright infringement? I'm not sure of your point here, since you are 1 person, not 10. Ok, than I invite anyone reading this to post his/her version :-). But even if I'm just one person the question still remains: Do you consider any of these 4 versions a violation of your copyright? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 06:12, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: But even if I'm just one person the question still remains: Do you consider any of these 4 versions a violation of your copyright? Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this? Which is of course the real issue, copyright does exist on the content, and assumptions have to be made about what is likely to have happened. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 2011-07-06 22:17, John Smith wrote: Are you planning to try and replace all my work one way at a time like this? No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM map or by just moving randomly some nodes. IMHO that's a very weak protection for a cc-by-sa map. Which is of course the real issue, copyright does exist on the content, and assumptions have to be made about what is likely to have happened. BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just reproducing geographical facts like the course of a street or a river is not enough: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001.html Unofficial Translation: Reproducing of geographical facts which one gets by surveying (for example the course of a mountain range, a river or a street or the location of a locality) in a map isn't protected by copyright (Urheberrecht) Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM map or by just moving randomly some nodes.The same goes for IMHO that's a very weak protection for a cc-by-sa map. How will the ODBL help here any better? This is an issue for all maps and this is why map companies put in trap streets. BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just reproducing geographical facts like the course of a street or a river is not enough: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001/JJR_19920114_OGH0002_0040OB00125_910_001.html Unofficial Translation: Reproducing of geographical facts which one gets by surveying (for example the course of a mountain range, a river or a street or the location of a locality) in a map isn't protected by copyright (Urheberrecht) So you are planning to copy from google maps then? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 08:27, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Google in addition have their ToS. So one person copies tiles and breaches contract and gives them to another person who is only bound by copyright ... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 06/07/2011 21:04, Anthony wrote: On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Dave F. wrote: If one of these gets moved then the whole way gets updated, No. Substantively, that is what happens, but technically, in the database, it is not. In the database, we go from: way id=1nd id=8nd id=9nd id=10/way node id=8 lat=82 lon=18 / node id=9 lat=81 lon=18 / node id=10 lat=81 lon=17 / to: way id=1nd id=8nd id=9nd id=10/way node id=8 lat=81 lon=17 / node id=9 lat=80 lon=17 / node id=10 lat=80 lon=16 / Of course, I think that obviously this: node id=8 lat=81 lon=17 / node id=9 lat=80 lon=17 / node id=10 lat=80 lon=16 / is a derivative of this: way id=1nd id=8nd id=9nd id=10/way node id=8 lat=82 lon=18 / node id=9 lat=81 lon=18 / node id=10 lat=81 lon=17 / (assuming a way with, say, 1000 nodes rather than 3...where between 3 and 1000 you can stop, well, that's a different question) Well, I learn something new every day. This explains a lot - as to why entities keep moving but there's no record of it. Can someone please explain the logic of not recording major changes in the database such as shifting an entity? Cheers Dave F. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Am 06.07.2011 20:31, schrieb John Smith: On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use in the digital era, You were talking about databases, however databases can still store copyrightable content, in this case it's copyright that we're talking about, if copyright weren't an issue the database could just be relicensed, but there is copyright involved so it can't. No, no, no, we are going through this slow and painful process because the OSMF stated that it would ask each contributor to re-license their data, simply because that's the right thing to do. That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in the data they contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on jurisdiction and so on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical purposes we are simply pretending that such rights exist and it just doesn't make sense to spend hours arguing about if moving a node creates a derivative work, because again -we are just pretending-. Because the whole thing is more an ethical question than a legal one, I have suggested before (on talk-de) the following resolution objects (points and ways) created by CT accepters stay in, in all version, objects created by CT objectors get thrown out in all versions. Nice and symmetric and equally distributes the pain. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in the data they contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on jurisdiction and so on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical purposes we are simply pretending that such rights exist and it just doesn't make sense to spend hours arguing about if moving a node creates a derivative work, because again -we are just pretending-. Think that all you like, it won't make it any more true than the comment about copyright not really applying in the digital age, the fact is maps and map making are covered by copyright, and copyright is recognised in most countries. Otherwise we could take other copyrighted maps and copy them. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Am 06.07.2011 23:25, schrieb Andreas Perstinger: BTW I've just found some high court decisions which clearly state that a map (and its content) isn't protected by copyright automatically here in Austria. You have to prove individual creativity. Just reproducing geographical facts like the course of a street or a river is not enough: Which is really not a big surprise, there a many many activities that we engage in day by day in which you continuously make decisions (as in mapping). Should I place the brick a bit more to the left or to the right, should I place a node there or better here. Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it for creativity (not that a crooked brick wall couldn't be a work of art, but most of the time it's just crooked). Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it for creativity I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the morally right thing to do which is usually where laws stem from. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Am 07.07.2011 01:40, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 09:34, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: That does not imply that individual contributors actually hold any rights in the data they contributed. As we know, that is a difficult question and depends on jurisdiction and so on, and my take on it would be: probably not. For all practical purposes we are simply pretending that such rights exist and it just doesn't make sense to spend hours arguing about if moving a node creates a derivative work, because again -we are just pretending-. Think that all you like, it won't make it any more true than the comment about copyright not really applying in the digital age, the fact is maps and map making are covered by copyright, and copyright is recognised in most countries. Otherwise we could take other copyrighted maps and copy them. -Maps- are covered by copyright. But a pile of geo data is not a map, and I can use it for many many purposes with output that nobody would ever confuse with a map. Just as the collections of measurements that mappers made before the dawn of computers were not a map, but simply the underlying data. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, which are rather recent and had nothing to do with morals. Simon Am 07.07.2011 01:54, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 09:47, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: Normally none of them lead to a protected work and nobody would confuse it for creativity I'm not sure if I'm more amused that you have to try and scale things down to the size of a brick or the fact that even you state it's the morally right thing to do which is usually where laws stem from. ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, which are rather recent and had nothing to do with morals. I didn't know the late 1800s was considered rather recent ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Am 07.07.2011 01:56, schrieb Anthony: ... There certainly is creativity involved in making a brick wall. Choosing a herringbone bond vs. a stretcher bond, for instance. And in some cases it can be copyrightable - not if it's just a herringbone or a stretcher bond, but if the pattern is unique enough, it's certainly copyrightable. Depends on the specifics. Just like mapping. Just like in map-making, not in surveying. If you design a nice brick pattern clearly the pattern has potential to be protectable, however a builder imperfectly following your pattern is not being creative. Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
In terms of laws, sure. Am 07.07.2011 02:08, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 10:04, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: Upps you are really confused about the origins of copyright protection, which are rather recent and had nothing to do with morals. I didn't know the late 1800s was considered rather recent ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters) which doesn't make it recent, but still twice as old as copyright law. The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not moral as you imply. Simon Am 07.07.2011 02:12, schrieb John Smith: On 7 July 2011 10:10, Simon Poolesi...@poole.ch wrote: In terms of laws, sure. Well copying wasn't much of a problem until the invention of the printing press, which according to you was relatively recent as well. ___ 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 10:20, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Well 300 to 400 years earlier (as in printing press with movable letters) which doesn't make it recent, but still twice as old as copyright law. The main point however is that copyright law has a economic motivation, not moral as you imply. How many painters die poor? What about famous composers? Economics became an issue much later. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 18:20, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [GG] I was not talking about copyright. Copyright laws are of no use in the digital era, You were talking about databases, however databases can still store copyrightable content, in this case it's copyright that we're talking about, if copyright weren't an issue the database could just be relicensed, but there is copyright involved so it can't. their application is too large and too wide, and information can be copied without loss. So what, copyright still covers creative works. The application of copyright law is expensive and full of pitfalls. See what happens with movies and mp3 on P2P networks. These are outdated legal texts, and have to be redefined. This is irrelevant, just because it's difficult to enforce, doesn't make it less enforcible. In creating tiles the map I agree. Not in creating a database. In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of making it that matters and because there is human involvement that's all that matters. [GG] Is that true ??? I would reformulate that as follows: In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of human coordinated creativity that matters. Copyright covers any work you do, no matter how trivial or how small, weather you intend to do something worth copyright or not. Photographers keep winning in court over companies that using their imagery without attribution and sometimes without paying for it. Not the mere fact that there are humans involved makes it copyrighted. I think you agree with me that software is copyrighted due to the algorithms implemented, a proof of effort and creativity. It's not the output of the software that is copyrighted by the writer of the software, but the source code. The output can be copyrighted, if created by copyrighted input. Didn't bison do something weird with licensing, where it was interacting with the output and including a chunk of itself the output was deemed to be copyrighted under the same license, in any case this is all pointless, we're not talking about survey's if you want a similar example use wikipedia, the content is copyrighted even though the it's stored in a database. OSM is the same. We have a set of algorithms and 200K+ human CPUs that as Not really, OSM doesn't produce anything, any more than MS can claim copyright on the output of word, the author of the document owns the copyright. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Hi, Dave F. wrote: If, by _used_ you mean that it's a part of the way, then *millions* of nodes have no attributes. No tags. Yes. If one of these gets moved then the whole way gets updated, No. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
- Original Message - From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everyone I've ever known. (1) and hence the secret of Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources (2) On a more serious note: I think it's important to remember that there's a difference between (a) that the creation of something (B) has been influenced by something else (A), even more directly impacted by A, (b) that B is derived from A, and finally, (c) that B is a derivative work of A. I was involved with publishing (student) song books (in Finland) when I was younger and we needed to do some wrestling to get the publishing rights (without getting fined, not to mention take-down/pull-out demands) for a number of (student) songs the lyrics of which were not only clearly influenced by copyrighted song lyrics but were quite clearly derived from them. At the end of the day we couldn't publish one song which was deemed a derivative work but at the same time we were able to successfully get publishing rights for many because they were _not_ seen being derivative works even though there was a pretty clear link with many of them to the original song. In the mapping scene or any other international project there's obviously a major difficulty in the fact that different countries laws / tradition treat these issues differently. But the basics are nevertheless the same, I _guess_. Surely OSM can't rely on guessing so it makes sense to be safer than sorry. But it IMHO it doesn't make sense to try to be holier than the pope, so to say. But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states that he has no clue of what kind of road/path/track/river?/ditch/wall/other it is) and then (2) I go to survey the road with GPS, upload the trace (or even simply overlay it with existing data in JOSM) and then tweak the road according to my trace+observations + tag it approriately. And I say that this holds true even if I'd leave a few nodes untouched (because they happened to be where my trace was). Leaving aside the legal / moral validity of the statement I say that this holds true even if I'd leave a few nodes untouched (because they happened to be where my trace was), there is a practical problem with your example. In your example you give the reason the nodes were untouched as being they happened to be where my trace was. In reality we wont know why these nodes were untouched. They may have been untouched because: (I) they happened to be where your trace was (ii) they were simply missed when you did the tracing in the area of your GPX track (iii) the way was a long way and some nodes were outside the area covered by your GPX track. (iv) other reasons. By virtue of the fact the node is untouched we know there will be no information attaching to the node to describe why its position was not moved, so we cant make any assumption about it. Now, surely some jack-ass lawyer could claim that a single (or the few) node(s) that I didn't touch creates a copyright violation and sue me. I could only say: please do. I presume you are here refering to the copyright of the way containing the untouched nodes. What percentage of untouched nodes on a way would you consider safe to use when determining whether the way contains no copyright from the original mapper? Regards David But I know s/he wouldn't. My work could very well be said having been derived (to an extent) from the original work -- but would certainly not be a derived work. (And someone may well disagree with that, and I appreciate that opinion. But I could bet my head on it.) Having said the above it's obviously a different thing that how OSM as a community wants to or even should handle various different situations regarding license change and dealing with data from non-complient sources. I just wanted to note what I think holds very true; that there's a difference between being derived from (to an extent!) and being a derivative work (as seen by law). Just my 2 cents, -Jaakko (1) Chuck Palahniukhttp://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2546.Chuck_Palahniuk (Invisible Monsters http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/849507) (2) Albert Einsteinhttp://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein (misquoated to him, it seems) -- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
John Smith deltafoxtrot256@... writes: On 5 July 2011 05:42, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaakko@... wrote: But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states that he has no clue of what kind of road/path/track/river?/ditch/wall/other it is) and then I agree with this only if you could give the same source of data to 10 different people and get the same result each time, for most roads there is some creativity that goes into selecting where to place nodes, which is recognised by most countries since making makes is deemed a creative enterprise. What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a node? If I put one additional node into the way or remove one, is that enough? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
David, My point was to note that being influenced by, being (somewhat) derived from and being a derivativer work are all different things. Period. Additionally I wanted to describe an example where one mapper goes about and produces a simple yet copyrighted work (via arm-chair mapping) and then one (or more people both add the necessary details for the trace to actually become a useful map object _and_ they also change/finetune most of the object geometry (including quite possibly cutting the rd some places where there in fact isn't a rd etc). And I stated for _that example_ that the amount of copyright left (term most probably not existing) is next to nothing for the original tracer; escecially if/when one or more ppl have also used their collected gps traces + new imagery to tweak the geometry. So, in the light of license change (or even copyright violations -- tracing originally from faulty sources) the fact that the 1st creator doesn't agree to the license anymore (or didn't have right to use the original source) will have gotten diminished (if that's any proper expression) at _some_ point. Period. Yes, theoretically there is some creative input left in the work, even some derivative, at least a touch of influence. And in practice some wonderful lawyer or a kind fellow mapper for that mapper could make a fuzz out of things, even sue. But strongly think that: (A) there wouldn't be a case. (B) the moral rights left would have been vanished at _some_ point. So u ask: What percentage of untouched nodes on a way would you consider safe to use when determining whether the way contains no copyright from the original mapper? I don't know. Perhaps 1.324%? As per my description there isn't a formula (at _some_ point). Would b gr8 to have one but such doesn't exist. And this is a (major?) part of why regardless of what I think of what is left of the actual copyright I also think -- as I think I wrote before -- that the community may well need to decide differently on the issue and I could well see myself supporting something stricter (if someone drags me into voting or otherwise casting an opinion on such a decision). Cheers, -Jaakko Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -- Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta -Original Message- From: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:37:51 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes - Original Message - From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everyone I've ever known. (1) and hence the secret of Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources (2) On a more serious note: I think it's important to remember that there's a difference between (a) that the creation of something (B) has been influenced by something else (A), even more directly impacted by A, (b) that B is derived from A, and finally, (c) that B is a derivative work of A. I was involved with publishing (student) song books (in Finland) when I was younger and we needed to do some wrestling to get the publishing rights (without getting fined, not to mention take-down/pull-out demands) for a number of (student) songs the lyrics of which were not only clearly influenced by copyrighted song lyrics but were quite clearly derived from them. At the end of the day we couldn't publish one song which was deemed a derivative work but at the same time we were able to successfully get publishing rights for many because they were _not_ seen being derivative works even though there was a pretty clear link with many of them to the original song. In the mapping scene or any other international project there's obviously a major difficulty in the fact that different countries laws / tradition treat these issues differently. But the basics are nevertheless the same, I _guess_. Surely OSM can't rely on guessing so it makes sense to be safer than sorry. But it IMHO it doesn't make sense to try to be holier than the pope, so to say. But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states that he has no clue of what kind of road/path/track/river?/ditch/wall/other it is) and then (2) I go to survey the road with GPS, upload the trace (or even simply overlay
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 02:49, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: I doubt if any effort in re-creating a map database of the real world can be classified as creative work, as the mapper inevitably tries to copy reality to the best of his effort, and any deviation is just imperfection and corrected once the right information is available. We aren't for the most part trying to make raster images of aerial imagery, so there is a lot of creativity that goes into making interpretations of the real world. I never met a OSM mapper saying he is using his creativity to create an original view of the world. Its not just a lack in precision and perfection that makes a work creative, the creator must also have the intention to add something of himself. In terms of copyright this doesn't matter, just like if you write a few lines of whatever, you automatically receive copyright on your work. In creating tiles the map I agree. Not in creating a database. In terms of copyright, it doesn't matter how a map is stored or how it is displayed, it's the act of making it that matters and because there is human involvement that's all that matters. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Hi, John Smith writes: On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way, i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object. The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. so assume the nodes are part of a way that is not available under new CTs. The mapper who agreed did not only move part of the nodes replacing their information with new one and confirming the existence. He also adds new nodes in the middle of the way to have it look eg more smooth. You suggest, that because the way is not clearly licensed all nodes of that way have to be deleted, ignoring the individual license state of the nodes because they could be derived? I'm not a lawyer but as this is legal talk I'm sure someone can explain why this is the case. I always thought that to claim a copyright you need some minimum threshold of originality. OSM is a project about data collecting not about art. I have serious doubts that the individual painting of the shape of a road is high enough to claim a copyright. So why should a single node do? From the original created node is nothing left but an automatically generated id for which only the server could claim a copyright for the high creative effort of generating the id. The way containing the nodes is replaced by a new way (different shape) that is licensed as CC-BY-SA as it is a derived work. Only the shape was modified. The original author could still hold parts of copyrights (if they exist). But back to the question: what about the nodes? Stephan ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Hi, John Smith wrote: In both cases, either tagging something as clean or deleting and re-adding assumes good faith, we already know people copy data from incompatible sources, what's to stop someone simple cutting and pasting data or mass tagging ways as clean? Nothing. But assuming good faith is not something new; we do that now with respect to other data sources. If someone were to flag something as clean that isn't and he's found out, we would have to do exactly what we do if we find that someone has been copying from Google etc. Actually I think there's no way around some sort of good-faith-assuming, community-involving process here because there will always be corner cases that cannot be determined algorithmically and that have to be investigated by a human being. We will need to create set of workable guidelines for our community members to exercise judgement but there will always be an element of judgement. 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
You need to consider and to apply due diligence. A deleted road/way/node is deleted, and by fiddling around with its properties, nodes or ways, you won't change its legal status. If you need to preserve a name of street (as an example) that you observed yourself withing the license CT conditions you need to link the name to other map objects that comply with the license and ct. So: I once noted a road from node xxx to yyy (both compliant nodes) and its name was observed name; I have not the slightest idea how it routed, but I know the name (and other properties), because . (CT and LICENCE compatible proof inserted). From these written observations, you may apply this name again to a new captured road that replaces the deleted road. Regards, Gert Gremmen, -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Andreas Perstinger [mailto:andreas.perstin...@gmx.net] Verzonden: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 3:05 PM Aan: legal-t...@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes John Smith deltafoxtrot256@... writes: On 5 July 2011 05:42, Jaakko Helleranta.com jaakko@... wrote: But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states that he has no clue of what kind of road/path/track/river?/ditch/wall/other it is) and then I agree with this only if you could give the same source of data to 10 different people and get the same result each time, for most roads there is some creativity that goes into selecting where to place nodes, which is recognised by most countries since making makes is deemed a creative enterprise. What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a node? If I put one additional node into the way or remove one, is that enough? Bye, Andreas ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 5 July 2011 23:04, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote: What do you consider as same result? How far away do I have to place a node? If I put one additional node into the way or remove one, is that enough? The same as in an identical result, if they use the same sources then the only difference is their creative interpretation of the data sources into producing map data. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
- Original Message - From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes David, My point was to note that being influenced by, being (somewhat) derived from and being a derivativer work are all different things. Period. Additionally I wanted to describe an example where one mapper goes about and produces a simple yet copyrighted work (via arm-chair mapping) and then one (or more people both add the necessary details for the trace to actually become a useful map object _and_ they also change/finetune most of the object geometry (including quite possibly cutting the rd some places where there in fact isn't a rd etc). And I stated for _that example_ that the amount of copyright left (term most probably not existing) is next to nothing for the original tracer; escecially if/when one or more ppl have also used their collected gps traces + new imagery to tweak the geometry. So, in the light of license change (or even copyright violations -- tracing originally from faulty sources) the fact that the 1st creator doesn't agree to the license anymore (or didn't have right to use the original source) will have gotten diminished (if that's any proper expression) at _some_ point. Period. Yes, theoretically there is some creative input left in the work, even some derivative, at least a touch of influence. And in practice some wonderful lawyer or a kind fellow mapper for that mapper could make a fuzz out of things, even sue. But strongly think that: (A) there wouldn't be a case. (B) the moral rights left would have been vanished at _some_ point. So u ask: What percentage of untouched nodes on a way would you consider safe to use when determining whether the way contains no copyright from the original mapper? I don't know. Perhaps 1.324%? As per my description there isn't a formula (at _some_ point). Would b gr8 to have one but such doesn't exist. Agreed it certainly doesn't exist at the moment. Since we are now in Phase 4 of the implementation plan [1], and part of phase 4 is Start of technical work to publish the first ODbL-only database. then at some stage soon (arguably before now) this discussion will have to move beyond a theoretical discussion to a practical one. Either: (i) there will be an automated process to remove certain ways / nodes which are deemed to be incompatible with CT/ODbL/DbCL, in which case a formula will have to be arrived at ; or (ii) every way / node which has not got a complete chain of acceptance for CT's will have to be individually looked at. Regards David [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan And this is a (major?) part of why regardless of what I think of what is left of the actual copyright I also think -- as I think I wrote before -- that the community may well need to decide differently on the issue and I could well see myself supporting something stricter (if someone drags me into voting or otherwise casting an opinion on such a decision). Cheers, -Jaakko Sent from my BlackBerry® device from Digicel -- Mobile: +509-37-26 91 54, Skype/GoogleTalk: jhelleranta -Original Message- From: David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 11:37:51 To: Licensing and other legal discussions.legal-t...@openstreetmap.org Reply-To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes - Original Message - From: Jaakko Helleranta.com jaa...@helleranta.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-t...@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everyone I've ever known. (1) and hence the secret of Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources (2) On a more serious note: I think it's important to remember that there's a difference between (a) that the creation of something (B) has been influenced by something else (A), even more directly impacted by A, (b) that B is derived from A, and finally, (c) that B is a derivative work of A. I was involved with publishing (student) song books (in Finland) when I was younger and we needed to do some wrestling to get the publishing rights (without getting fined, not to mention take-down/pull-out demands) for a number of (student) songs the lyrics of which were not only clearly influenced by copyrighted song lyrics but were quite clearly derived from them. At the end of the day we couldn't publish one song which was deemed a derivative work but at the same time we were able
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Hi, Stephan Knauss wrote: The mapper who agreed did not only move part of the nodes replacing their information with new one and confirming the existence. I think that's the key point here. We cannot know whether the new mapper actually had a valid source that would have let him place these nodes. Imagine: The mapper has collected a GPX track for a 10km long cycleway that, partly, followed a riverbank. When mapping, he finds that the current river geometry in OSM seems to be 20 metres offset because it meanders in and out of his cycleway. He doesn't have a full new river geometry; he only knows that in 3 locations along the 10km track, the river is obviously, and consistently offset - maybe the river is tagged source=landsat which would explain that -, and thus the mapper simply moves the whole river and all its nodes 20 metres into one direction. This is a contrived example but not totally unrealstic; I have definitely done similar things myself! Now according to your logic, the new mapper gains sole copyright (provided such a thing exists) for the 10km stretch of river, even though he never even looked at the Landsat images or whatever. On the other hand, had the new mapper traveled along the river in a boat and collected a GPX track which later led him to do the exact same thing - move the whole river by 20 metres in one direction -, then that could be said to constitute a confirmation of the existence and a replacement of the geometry information with new, originally collected information. Now if my example was really outlandish and something like that almost never happens, then one could probably say, to hell with it, let's assume any moving of a geometry can only be made from original sources. But if there is reason to believe that this happens often, then we must err on the side of caution and flag the river (in this example) for deletion. Now if the mapper comes along and sees the river flagged for deletion, and remembers that he traveled the river in a boat, and maybe even has the GPX track, there's nothing to keep him from simply overriding the standard assumption of we will have to delete this river. We don't yet have a mechanism for that; currently the mapper would have to delete and re-create the river but personally I am in favour of a special, temporary license override tag that people could add to an object, something like i_have_personally_investigated_the_history_of_this_object_and_i_can_vouch_for_it_being_odbl_clean=true. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 6 July 2011 07:37, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Now if the mapper comes along and sees the river flagged for deletion, and remembers that he traveled the river in a boat, and maybe even has the GPX track, there's nothing to keep him from simply overriding the standard assumption of we will have to delete this river. We don't yet have a mechanism for that; currently the mapper would have to delete and re-create the river but personally I am in favour of a special, temporary license override tag that people could add to an object, something like i_have_personally_investigated_the_history_of_this_object_and_i_can_vouch_for_it_being_odbl_clean=true. In both cases, either tagging something as clean or deleting and re-adding assumes good faith, we already know people copy data from incompatible sources, what's to stop someone simple cutting and pasting data or mass tagging ways as clean? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
2011/7/2 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT, while B has. Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license change? You could say: yes, because version 2 is clearly a derived work of version 1. You could also say: no, because the information added in version 2 (new coordinates) overwrites all information that was there from version 1, so there is nothing left to be protected. Opinions? IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way, i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 4 July 2011 22:44, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the node position is never a derived work when it is updated. So for the case of the untagged node (if isolated an not part of a way, i.e. unlikely) we could keep the whole object. The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:53 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: The position of nodes are often derived from the position of other nodes. Nothing of me is original. I am the combined effort of everyone I've ever known. (1) and hence the secret of Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources (2) On a more serious note: I think it's important to remember that there's a difference between (a) that the creation of something (B) has been influenced by something else (A), even more directly impacted by A, (b) that B is derived from A, and finally, (c) that B is a derivative work of A. I was involved with publishing (student) song books (in Finland) when I was younger and we needed to do some wrestling to get the publishing rights (without getting fined, not to mention take-down/pull-out demands) for a number of (student) songs the lyrics of which were not only clearly influenced by copyrighted song lyrics but were quite clearly derived from them. At the end of the day we couldn't publish one song which was deemed a derivative work but at the same time we were able to successfully get publishing rights for many because they were _not_ seen being derivative works even though there was a pretty clear link with many of them to the original song. In the mapping scene or any other international project there's obviously a major difficulty in the fact that different countries laws / tradition treat these issues differently. But the basics are nevertheless the same, I _guess_. Surely OSM can't rely on guessing so it makes sense to be safer than sorry. But it IMHO it doesn't make sense to try to be holier than the pope, so to say. But nevertheless _I_ would say that copyright/IPR-wise there's 0% left of anything protectable if (1) someone's e.g. traced a road from imagery, but has only marked it with, say, highway=road (meaning he states that he has no clue of what kind of road/path/track/river?/ditch/wall/other it is) and then (2) I go to survey the road with GPS, upload the trace (or even simply overlay it with existing data in JOSM) and then tweak the road according to my trace+observations + tag it approriately. And I say that this holds true even if I'd leave a few nodes untouched (because they happened to be where my trace was). Now, surely some jack-ass lawyer could claim that a single (or the few) node(s) that I didn't touch creates a copyright violation and sue me. I could only say: please do. But I know s/he wouldn't. My work could very well be said having been derived (to an extent) from the original work -- but would certainly not be a derived work. (And someone may well disagree with that, and I appreciate that opinion. But I could bet my head on it.) Having said the above it's obviously a different thing that how OSM as a community wants to or even should handle various different situations regarding license change and dealing with data from non-complient sources. I just wanted to note what I think holds very true; that there's a difference between being derived from (to an extent!) and being a derivative work (as seen by law). Just my 2 cents, -Jaakko (1) Chuck Palahniukhttp://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2546.Chuck_Palahniuk (Invisible Monsters http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/849507) (2) Albert Einsteinhttp://www.goodreads.com/author/show/9810.Albert_Einstein (misquoated to him, it seems) -- http://osm.org/user/jaakkoh ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes.
Frederik, On a related note, what if Mapper A has traced a road from (now) uncompliant imagery. Mapper B has surveyed the road but had decided to leave A's hard work in place and just add the road's name. Mapper A now decides to withdraw from the OSM project and not relicence his contributions. It does not seen fair or reasonable that mapper B's hard work should be destroyed by A's decisions. I think it would be fair and reasonable to leave a place marker (with the road's name and any other info put by mapperB) somewhere along the road, when the road traced by mapper a is removed. That way, when another mapper either traces the road from compliant imagery or from the GPS track, mapper's B work can be reinserted. Cheers Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
Hi, suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT, while B has. Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license change? You could say: yes, because version 2 is clearly a derived work of version 1. You could also say: no, because the information added in version 2 (new coordinates) overwrites all information that was there from version 1, so there is nothing left to be protected. Opinions? 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] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 3 July 2011 02:15, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, suppose there's a node that has been created by user A with no tags on it. Suppose the node has later been moved by user B. A has not accepted the CT, while B has. Will the node have to be removed when we go to phase 5 of the license change? You could say: yes, because version 2 is clearly a derived work of version 1. You could also say: no, because the information added in version 2 (new coordinates) overwrites all information that was there from version 1, so there is nothing left to be protected. Opinions? I'm guessing, but I feel your simple example above would only hold true for unattached nodes. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
