> 1. As far as I can tell from the copyright statement and use cases > this is a produced work and SIL International, Map Maker, Ltd. And > worldgeodatasets.com will retain their copyright for their parts of the > produced work(overall map design, language polygons, admin boundaries and > places), and OSM will retain their copyright for their parts of the > produced work(roads, rivers, lakes and forests). This is because the rest > of the other data wasn’t derived from any of the OSM data. Also the OSM > data doesn’t interact with the other data as it doesn’t follow the same > lines as the other data. That is especially clear where admin boundary > lines and coincident language boundary lines do not exactly match OSM river > lines. I also chose to generalize the admin boundary lines and language > boundary lines a bit for artistic purposes based on the scale at a province > level. Does this seem correct in this case? I’ve included a draft province > map for reference to make it clear how I’m using the different layers. The > main thing I’m wanting to make sure of is that SIL and > worldgeodatasets.com will retain their copyrights for the language > polygons and places in the country and not be required to be freely > distributed under any of the OSM copyright terms or policies. > > This sounds fine and consistent with the https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Collective_Database_Guideline_Guideline
> 2. Is the following attribution correct specifically for the OSM > data that I will use? Note that the publication will be in Portuguese. So > I’ve translated everything that I felt pertinent into Portuguese. Is that > appropriate, or are there parts of it or all of the OSM attribution that > should or need to be in English? I’ve been planning on putting this > attribution on each of the 17 province maps and a country overview map. Is > that necessary to put the attribution on each map, or do I only need to > include it in the front matter of the atlas, as the plan is to have all the > maps together in the publication? Perhaps there is a more descriptive OSM > attribution that could be included in the front matter, and a more simple > or streamlined attribution on the individual maps? At first I had down © > OpenStreetMap contribuidores CC-BY-SA (2020), however my colleague > suggested CC-BY-SA would be better to be replaced by the newer license > ODbL. And I’m not actually sure I need to include CC-BY-SA or ODbL as I’m > not using tiles, just selections of OSM shapefiles. Overall I just want to > make sure I’m correctly attributing the OSM layers. Also, a colleague > specifically asked if the copyright symbol needs to be included in the > attribution for OSM data or if it could be taken out as he says data can’t > be copyrighted. > > > > © 2020 SIL International®, Todos os direitos reservados; > > *Limites administrativos:* Limites e Lugares Mundiais pela ESRI (2019) e > Map Maker, Ltd. (2007); > > Limites municipais, Angola, 2007 Map Maker, Ltd. Disponível em: > http://purl.stanford.edu/td535nm8341; > > *Estradas, rios, lagos e florestas*: © OpenStreetMap contribuidores ODbL > (2020); > > *Llugares:* Inclui geodados do worldgeodatasets.com (2020). > Translation is appropriate. Given the nature of your publication, I would suggest a more descriptive OSM attribution (with the URL to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright printed out) in the front matter, and simplified info on (or under, such as a caption) the maps themselves. You do not need CC-BY-SA, that is outdated (even the tiles are no longer CC-BY-SA as of July, though not all of the translations of the copyright page have been updated, please feel free to help). The extent of copyright protection for data varies country to country, so we still recommend it. I don't speak Portuguese, but your attribution block looks correct and appropriate to me (based on Google translate), but I would add the URL to https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright so people can find out detailed license information easily. > > > 3. I’m planning on having the OSM shapefiles available upon > request. Since the publication will be in printed form as an atlas, I’m > thinking of including my personal e-mail or perhaps and/or the e-mail of > the Angolan government representative or department in the front matter of > the atlas as the way to contact me and/or them and request the OSM > shapefiles. Is that OK? If I have the time to update open street map itself > with my edits, or at least the edits I feel add value and are more detailed > or more accurate and then refer people to updated OSM shapefiles for the > country would that suffice for providing the data without having to also > send the shapefiles I’m using for the map as they are? I’m not sure > replacing all of my edits would be the best idea as in some places I edited > for simplicity and included long stretches of road based on satellite > imagery which were continuous lines vs the often more detailed OSM short > segments. I also didn’t add or edit any metadata to any new or edited > lines. So metadata would need to be added/updated when putting directly > into the OSM database. I’m more than happy to send anyone the shapefiles, > I’m just thinking long term 20-30 years down the road e-mails may change > and it might get difficult get new contact information out or ensure people > have access to the shapefiles. > > > Yes, that is within the parameters of the license. Alternatively, you might consider hosting your shapefile on GitHub or a similar platform, and listing the URL of the repository in the book. Then people can go and download the shapefiles themselves without having to find you. Best, Kathleen
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
