Hi Rube,
That’s exactly what I meant, thanks. Even communication interns are surprised
when we tell them to not use copyrighted imagery and to attribute open stuff.
They don’t learn that in their (college) universities courses, let alone,
figure it our themselves. My guess here is that they just hired a graphic
designer to make this flyer and whoever is actually responsible (Cf. VU
address) hasn’t even the slightest clue that they were doing something wrong.
Considering how fuzzy the imagery is, this could just be a Mapbox Studio
screenshot in high quality with adjusted colours.
Kind regards,
Pieter-Jan
Community Coordinator
Open Knowledge Belgium
m: +32 476 66 27 77 a: Sint-Salvatorstraat 18/101, 9000 Gent
s: www.openknowledge.be <http://www.openknowledge.be/> e:
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> On 03 Aug 2016, at 16:06, Ruben Maes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Pieter
>
> Thanks for your reply. Replying inline:
>
> On woensdag 3 augustus 2016 15:49 Pieter-Jan Pauwels wrote:
>> “What do you mean we can use Images on Google Images? Then why would they
>> make them available in the first place?”
>
> I believe you meant "What do you mean we can*not* use Images on Google
> Images?"
> Assuming that:
>
>> (...) I have a non-print marketing background and I can tell you nobody
>> knows the anything about licenses in re-using materials (except contributors
>> and legal counselors). I’ve been evangelising open licenses for over 2 years
>> now and I still get the same reaction from high level marketeers to uni
>> students: “What do you mean we cannot use Images on Google Images? Then why
>> would they make them available in the first place?” And that’s just for
>> images, let alone, data or virtual maps.
>
> Really? How unprofessional...
>
>> So yes contact them, but don’t start with going in offensive mode by tapping
>> them on the fingers. Awareness and open discussions bring in more souls to
>> the (l)(r)ight side.
>
> You're right.
> I kind of assumed that given the scale of this they must be knowing what they
> do.
>
>> Maybe we should consider more info on http://osm.be/nl/usage
>> <http://osm.be/nl/usage> about how the license applies when graphically
>> copying or screenshotting the map, because now it’s very data focused, no?
>
> It's like they created their own style. That also contributed to me thinking
> they knew what they were doing. (Or they just used a rendering I haven't seen
> before.)
>
>> (...)
>>
>>> On 03 Aug 2016, at 15:30, Ruben Maes <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a feeling that they were actually aware of the attribution
>>> requirement, but deliberately didn't do it because it's difficult for us to
>>> act on.
>
> --
> This message is OpenPGP signed._______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
