On 02/01/2013 15:20, Richard Weait wrote:
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Tobias Knerr <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Am 02.01.2013 11:41, Robin Paulson wrote:
> http://store.axismaps.com/product/boston-blue
>
> osm is mentioned on the web site, but not on the poster itself.
>
> suggestions, comments, etc. requested please.
I'm assuming that they only sell these posters though their site? In
that case, it is not a license violation if the site properly
attributes
OSM.*
If their customer then publicly displays or re-distributes these
posters
without informing the viewer/recipient about the source, the customer
would indeed be committing a license violation - but for that we
cannot
technically blame the original vendor.
Tobias
* I'm ignoring the missing link to the license for now.
Axis Maps spoke with LWG some time ago. You can probably find them in
the archives on this list as well. Attribution on the map looks
great, presuming that they made the map from pre-change data. They
also mention OSM on the site. Both of those aspects seem good.
Has anybody contacted them to find out if the data and maps are older
or newer? If one was concerned about this issue, after seeing the
attribution on the map, one could drop a note to
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> and LWG will
put it on their list for the next LWG meeting.
Tobias' suggestion that I could not hang this poster in my home unless
I tell every visitor about the data license seems to over reach what
is required by normal copyright. I don't have to tell you that my
Picasso is a Picasso* when you come over for Mappy Hour.
We are talking about a printed poster here, right? If I bought one
then made and sold copies, I suspect that Axis Maps would have issues
with me copying without permission, just as the author of a book might
not like me copying and reselling their book. But if I were to copy
and resell it, with the OSM attribution on it, I can't see a
reasonable data-license-violation there.
Well, at least it looks like there is an attribution (at least from the
bigcartel cropped image linked earlier in this thread) but it's so small
so as to pretty much be invisible. More importantly, whilst it's
following the letter, it's not following the spirit of the rule.
Is there no requirement that the attribution has to be visible (or
clearly indicated), or at least a similar size to the other body copy?
Having it overlaid on graphics in a tiny point size is a little
disingenuous.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
