Your complaint about LiveStream is that their attribution is completely missing, not that it's behind a click. I agree that it's missing and that it should be somewhere. It's not clear at all where they are getting their data (the rendering looks like Leaflet). If they are looking into it, then why not believe they are looking into it? They will probably fix it after they figure it out. DJI fixed it after investigating, and it took them a while to investigate as well.
"reasonably calculated" means "reasonable." What does reasonable mean? Well a court would look at what other people in the industry do. Do others in the industry list attribution, especially to multiple data sources, after a click (or many clicks)? Yes, all the time. A court would also look at what OSM does. Does OSM list its data sources after a link? Yes, sometimes two links (first to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, then to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors). Some of this data is also under ODbL! Why is this not reasonable? And you are pointing to the wrong version of CC-BY, btw, 4.0 came out long after the license change, but since "reasonable" is the standard, Creative Commons itself gives as an example of "best practices" attribution for multiple sources this page: https://learn.saylor.org/course/view.php?id=28 Click on "Course Terms of Use" to see a list of attributions. On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 11:38 AM Nuno Caldeira <nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote: > Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on top of > an image > > As written on CC-BY-SA > > *Attribution*. > > If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must: > retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed > Material: > > 1. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any > others designated to receive attribution, in any r*easonable manner > requested by the Licensor* (including by pseudonym if designated); > > in 3 a 1 A 1 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode > > > > that no interaction is allowed??? > > > it says: > > 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced > Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you > Publicly Use a Produced Work, *You must include a notice associated with* > * the Produced Work* reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, > *views,* accesses, interacts with, or is *otherwise exposed* to the > Produced > Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative > Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it > is available under this License. > > If you can explain me how "reasonably calculated" to anyone that views or > is exposed means that no attribution must be visibly on the Produced work. > Feel free, i would like to know. > > Unless OSMF when we switched from CC to ODbL mislead the contributors and > it's contributor terms, which i highly doubt. > > > Let's do an exercise. > > LiveStream, a company of Vimeo uses OSM data on their website via a third > party provider (Mapbox). I contacted LiveStream to comply with the license, > they reply they are not using OSM data. Strange since i see my > contributions on it, maybe they are not aware (being premium clients > doesn't allow you to remove the attribution, other than the service > provider, Mapbox). Asked them who sold them my data without complying with > the license that i agreed my content to be distributed under. For over one > month their legal department is still checking this. > > Link with a map example (feel free to browse to your contribution area), > click on the "i" for the map to display > https://livestream.com/accounts/9869799/events/7517661 printscreen of the > maphttps://ibb.co/TH4LbFp > > Now the questions: > > 1 - Are they fulfilling the license? > > a) yes > > B) no > > > 2 - Who's responsible? > > a) Mapbox > > b) LiveStream/Vimeo > > > But following your "Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that > attribution must be on top of an image or that no interaction is allowed", > i have search all LiveStream website and there's no notice at all of OSM > data. > > > 3 - Who's not aware? > > a) Mapbox, an OSMF corporate member > > b) LiveStream/Vimeo, client of Mapbox > > c) contributors/OSMF > > > > Às 18:56 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu: > > Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on top of > an image or that no interaction is allowed??? > > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira < > nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the bellow quote >> was not true? >> >> Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”. >> >> >> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F >> >> >> Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to interact to >> acknowledge the notice. >> Às 18:08 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu: >> >> >> Guidelines by the licensor >>> >>> On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users of our >>> data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a final decision >>> on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are helpful to *avoid >>> *disputes >>> arising in the first place and can be considered by the courts in coming to >>> their verdict. >>> >>> from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines >>> >> >> Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have quoted >> here isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might* happen and what >> motivates OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly, OSMF can choose to change >> the language you have quoted as a part of changing the guidelines! >> Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the contract, is >> taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the only thing that matters. >> The words of the licence matter more, and if there is a conflict between >> what the licensor thinks and what the licence says, the words of the >> licence will control. In that case, the licensor is simply "wrong" (and >> there are plenty of cases where that was the end result). >> You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out reasonable >> guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are unreasonable and not >> tied to the language of the licence, then no one, either users of the data >> or judges, will listen to OSMF, and, under the law, rightly so. >> >> >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
