It seems my little rant about what I perceive as an unnecessarily
precious approach to copyright issues ruffled a few feathers. I think
everyone's plumage is spruce again now, so I just want to respond to
some of the helpful guidance received.
You may yet have to come across a streetname deliberately spelled
wrongly or in fact any of the other possible easter eggs introduced by
commercial mapmakers just to protect database rights.
Using street signs and doing general surveing on the ground is the
only
safe option. --- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie
Correct! I have never actually seen one, but I'm sure they exist.
However, I can make my own spelling mistakes without their help. I
hope people didn't assume I'm doing all my mapping from the A-Z. I do
actually go out there collecting tracks with my GPS, photographing
things, naming waypoints and even remembering the odd street name.
Further discussion on this topic is probably best relegated to the
legal-talk list:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
If not, I would like to see them sue.
This statement is exactly the *opposite* of what the OSM Foundation
probably feels. Lawsuits cost money. OSM doesn't have the kind of
resources that allow it to consider defending a suit a reasonable path
at this time, and thus, it takes the 'moral high ground' by avoiding
all the issues involved and playing it completely safe, as is the best
position for a project of this nature to take. --- Christopher Schmidt
also...
I think this is generally the point: most people would prefer they
/didn't/ sue. Even if their case didn't really have a leg to stand on,
you still end up having to defend it which is more hassle than it's
worth if you can simply avoid the situation in the first place. The
same goes for taking street names or climbing route information from
sources which claim copyright.
As for whether copying the names from maps is legal, well there's
plenty of opinion on this from lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Database
right tends to come into it too. I get the feeling YMMV. OSM policy
has always been to keep to the safe side of the argument and only
allow sources which are guaranteed to be permitted.
Anyway, follow ups to the legal-talk list please. --- Dave Stubbs
I tried subscribing to the legal list but something seems to be
broken, so I'm back here polluting the talk list - sorry!
Here ("I would like to see them sue") I was using what I thought was
a widely-used and equally widely-understood device, colloquially
known as 'irony' (though I'm sure a grammarian would correct that). I
did not actually mean it literally. I like OSM and I really hope it
doesn't get sued (and here I'm not being ironic).
I'm all for staying on the right side of the law even if it means I
might not go to heaven when I die. If anyone ever
accuses me of copying a street name from a book or a map I will deny
ever having set eyes on said book or map or having asked anyone who
might have seen it. There is a danger I might occasionally have to
lie, but it's better than getting sued, eh?. To be really safe, I'm
going to start looking carefully at the street signs for copyright
notices. (sort of irony again).
On the other hand, on a rock face there are no signs - things can
become much more subjective. Climbing (difficulty) grades, for
example, are estimates - there is no hard fast rule about what
makes a route a specific grade. A bunch of people climb it and
make a guestimate on how hard they think it is. --- Steve Hill
My original post was prompted by one about climbing route names from
Chris Hill. You guys take your surnames too seriously.
It sounds like this climbing malarky is as anarchic as OSM. You
should have committees to grade climbs and approve route names and
climbing police to ensure no-one ever uses a copyrighted route name
without proper attribution.
elvin ibbotson
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
