On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16 September 2010 00:37, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: >> I believe John Smith initially suggested it to NearMap. Ben Last at NearMap > > No, I posted the question publicly to the legal talk list, my concern > wasn't just about Nearmap but any source that may be too easy to > access by new contributors that would be unaware that they would be > breaching contract with OSM or the source or both. > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004069.html > >> In addition I feel very strongly that copyright on imagery does not, and >> should not, 'transfer' to tracings from that imagery > > Copyright isn't transferring from imagery to tracings,
Are you speaking for NearMap, "JohnSmith" or just agreeing with Richard Fairhurst above that "copyright on imagery does not, and should not, 'transfer' to tracings from that imagery"? I don't speak for NearMap, of course, but the impression I had from the conversation with Ben, yesterday, is that NearMap argue that they have rights that _do_ persist in derived works such as traced vectors. If you have had previous conversations with NearMap that denied this strong persistence argument, I believe that they have changed their position. Legal argument aside. Frankly it makes my head hurt. If a vendor decides to stop allowing OSM use of their resources, we should say "Thanks for what you did contribute, and fare well." _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
