Hi, (me) >>> Assuming for a moment that my contributions to OSM are copyrightable and >>> the CC-BY-SA license is valid, then if I license my data CC-BY-SA I have >>> the right to request anyone using my data, or building or using derived >>> versions thereof, to provide attribution in the form I believe is >>> required, and I can drag them to court if they don't.
(Ævar) >> No you don't. You've just given them permission to use your works >> under a license which dictates that distributors must attribute you >> within the limited scope demanded of them by the license. As long as >> they're otherwise in compliance you have no right to demand additional >> attribution not required by the license. (Martin) > could you point me to the limitation part of the attribution in cc-by-sa? > AFAIK you have to attribute all contributors. Multiple misunderstandings here. What I wanted to say, initially, was that the contributor decides which form of attribution he finds appropriate. Ævar interpreted this as "the contributor can demand any kind of attribution" and said that I was wrong. Ævar is right in saying that the license does not allow the contributor to demand ANY kind of attribution. In fact it says: "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work..." So the author may only request that his name/pseudonym, the title of the work, and an URL that he specifies are used as credits. (Still this is vastly more than supported by OSM.) There is of course the soft factor of "reasonable to the medium or means", and it is always the licensor who has to find it reasonable. If you make a TV production and only list the licensor's name in the credits at the end, and the licensor then says that it would have been perfectly reasonable to show his name in the picture while his work was shown, then he *can* drag you to court over this - and whether he will win is anyone's guess. Now you again misunderstood Ævar to say that a collective attribution is allowed. Ævar never said that. There is an "opt-out" clause for attribution, where CC-BY-SA says: "If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested." So the licensors have the right to request that you remove the attribution; but it would be a far stretch to claim that by taking part in OSM licensors automatically do so. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
