On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote: >> And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless >> the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the >> map. >> http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm > > This is a funny example because you could conceivably cut out a corner from > the map, then place the image where it is now... it is just about > conceivable to make a copy of this map without copying the image so maybe > this could work as a collection.
I think so. The main point that I would argue is that the modification of cutting out a corner is independent from the image. I suppose you could argue the same if you cut out holes from an OSM map, without knowing what you were going to put there, and then laid in copyrightable non-CC-BY-SA elements into the holes. Maybe technically legal, but definitely a subversion of the spirit of the license. > >> How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations? >> http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/ > > Certainly the whole map needs to by CC-BY-SA. > > We did have some pages with examples about this on our wiki, years ago. I > remember the example was a tourist guide with maps and photos, and there > were several cases where maps and photos (and text) were sometimes > superimposed, sometimes side-by-side, and the whole thing was commented as > to what is derived and what is collected. I cannot find it now, however. > > I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and > co-dependency - the question of "does the overlaid stuff work without the > map". So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a certain > point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its meaning > without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your photo just > sits there and could just as well sit there without the map, then it could > be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I necessarily share > and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has something going for it. > >> Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or >> photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict >> interpretation was used. > > I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have indeed > been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully CC-BY-SA'ed because > it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That* I call a strict reading > (and one I clearly don't share). > > Bye > Frederik > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk