Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
-- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Potential-huge-License-violation-anyone-know-anything-about-this-tp5132343p5134100.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
So, in summary: - No attribution - Is a derived work released under Copyright I assume this hasn't been cleared and 'waived' by someone at OSM? Where can we go from here? I think that in cases where we can prove such a 'mistake' we should send them a letter and clearly indicate their wrong behavior. In addition we should put a sentence that they can make donation to OpenStreetMap and the community forgets about the mistake. Otherwise the OSMF might take further legal actions. From my experience I can tell that most companies would be willing to pay a reasonable amount as it would take away the risk of bad press. In the end the outcome would be best for both parties where the impact and severity of the mistake is low or medium (I wouldn't consider it a huge violation as in the header. For me a huge violation is when another make maker steals OSM data). In cases where a company gains a financial advantage from a breach of license I think legal actions would be appropriate and should definitely be taken. I think this is important as many companies are already watching what happens in case of a severe violation to OSM data. If nothing happens many companies might take advantage... Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Potential-huge-License-violation-anyone-know-anything-about-this-tp5132343p5134658.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Hi, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: In addition we should put a sentence that they can make donation to OpenStreetMap and the community forgets about the mistake. Otherwise the OSMF might take further legal actions. You mean as in Dear Mr President, I've got this photo showing you in bed with another man, here's my bank account where you can make a donation, in which case I will forget about it... ... unless I need more money later in which case I might again remember? Honestly, what you're suggesting smacks of blackmail. I do not doubt for a second that it will work in some cases but I consider it morally inacceptable, *especially* because every single contributor is entitled to take legal action, so even if the accused paid up nobody in the world can guarantee that he would not get sued, or get bad press. (I'm not sure in how far this might change with the proposed license change; if the license change puts OSMF in the sole position of being able to sue then yes, OSMF could say they won't sue in exchange for payment but I would still consider this questionable, not least because it would mean that if they decline to pay we'd have to sue which I'd like to avoid.) In cases where a company gains a financial advantage from a breach of license I think legal actions would be appropriate and should definitely be taken. I think this is important as many companies are already watching what happens in case of a severe violation to OSM data. If nothing happens many companies might take advantage... I am very skeptical of legal action. If someone really takes the piss then yes, perhaps, but it must never come to OSMF being a fundraising machine for lawyers. Legal action can very quickly cost more than everything else we do, and I would hate to be in a project whose main activity, according to the balance books, is paying lawyers to sue people. Legal action must be the exception, not the norm, and reserved for really big cases. There is so much murky and questionable legal action going on around copyright and maps, and it must never come to people being fearful of using OSM because they fear the legal consequences of misstepping. Also, if we start threatening to sue people then we also need to set up proper advice for users (if you follow these rules then we won't sue you), and be prepared to answer questions (I want to do X. Is that allowed?) with something other than Dunno, ask a lawyer, and we might still sue you later. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Dear Mr President, I've got this photo showing you in bed with another man, here's my bank account where you can make a donation, in which case will forget about it... ... unless I need more money later in which case I might again remember? Honestly, what you're suggesting smacks of blackmail. It is a completely different story. The reason behind the action is stop others from repeating the mistakes. If you just ignore every case without consequences you fill in a blank cheque for the rest of world. You normally see roughly 100 hundred post in a mailing list in case of a misuse but not action towards the guys who were misbehaving. I think this is one of the big weaknesses of OSM: it is very good at arguing in the group but not at taking it to the outside world. There needs to be a process to educate the market. It does not help anybody to show the frustrations in mailing list. And if you have a better proposal for education then please come up with it. I am very skeptical of legal action. If someone really takes the piss then yes, perhaps, but it must never come to OSMF being a fundraising machine for lawyers. Legal action can very quickly cost more than everything else we do, and I would hate to be in a project whose main activity, according to the balance books, is paying lawyers to sue people. If that is needed to prevent OSM from exploiting then - yes - there might be fundraising machine for legal support. However, I have not intention to artificially blow it up. I just want to create a situation where people are aware that abusing OSM data leads to consequences so that is becomes a trade-off like not buying a ticket for train. Regards, Oliver -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Potential-huge-License-violation-anyone-know-anything-about-this-tp5132343p5135013.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Hi, Oliver (skobbler) wrote: I just want to create a situation where people are aware that abusing OSM data leads to consequences so that is becomes a trade-off like not buying a ticket for train. If too many people use the train without paying then the operator will go bust. If too many people use OSM without attribution then...? Don't get me wrong, as long as we have this license we should insist on people following it, if only to respect our work. But by making comparisons like the above you're already playing what I like to call the music industry game, which is neatly illustrated here: http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/piratebay_header.jpg Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
2010/6/3 Phil Monger phil...@gmail.com: I want OSM to be used in this way, but properly - and with according advantages given to end users. Companies *need to know* they cannot assert copyright over the mapping they take in this way. +1 cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
So I was looking through some cycle books, as you do, when I came across this one (i've hosted the images 3rd party and avoided HTML, if they don't work let me know. I had to snap them on the iPhone - so sorry for the lack of a close focus!!) : http://img249.imageshack.us/i/img0002tw.jpg/ It's a new cycle book for London, with routes, etc. Pretty standard fare. The problem? All the maps inside are blatant OSM copies (Mapnik, I assume) with route overlays posted. Now this wouldn't be a problem, obviously, except they are way WAY outside of CC-BY-SA. Firstly, they claim copyright over the whole book and 'every part therein.' To add insult to creative-commons injury they claim copyright over the mapping: http://img193.imageshack.us/i/img0003oz.jpg/ It's a little hard to make out (sorry again) but reads Copyright 2010 in maps, New Holland Publishers Ltd... then later states all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced.. You can read this page on the Amazon product page - http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Cycling-Guide-Exploring-Capital/dp/1847735460 - unfortunately none of the OSM maps pop up on that preview, at least not for me. For reference, there are maps for *each of the 30 routes* inside. All OSM except for some overview mapping which looks donated from the council. This is the best shot I could get of the OSM mapping being used : http://img707.imageshack.us/i/img0005na.jpg/ None of the maps have *any* accreditation back to OSM on them. The only place OSM is mentioned it on the very last page, very last line, where it says All other maps by Steve Dew using base maps by OpenStreetMap : http://img412.imageshack.us/i/img0004qh.jpg/ No mention of CC, no logo, no link, ect. Ironically, it doesn't list OSM or OCM as useful resources for cyclists ... I wonder why? So, in summary: - No attribution - Is a derived work released under Copyright I assume this hasn't been cleared and 'waived' by someone at OSM? Where can we go from here? I have an urge to go start flogging scanned copies and claim .. but surely as a derivative work this is also a work released under CC-BY-SA? if that's what it takes to stop corporations like New Holland from pilfering work like this. ;) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
On 2 June 2010 21:03, Phil Monger phil...@gmail.com wrote: So I was looking through some cycle books, as you do, when I came across this one (i've hosted the images 3rd party and avoided HTML, if they don't work let me know. I had to snap them on the iPhone - so sorry for the lack of a close focus!!) : Hi Phil This has already been address and the publisher has promised to make a correction. Complaint: http://compton.nu/2010/05/how-not-to-credit-openstreetmap/ Resolution: http://compton.nu/2010/05/well-done-new-holland-pubishers/ The current edition does have a tiny attribution at the back inside cover if I recall. Regards Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
The LWG has been working with council on similar infringement cases. I suggest this gets added. As an aside, this is exactly what happened to some of my work a few years ago. On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Phil Monger wrote: So I was looking through some cycle books, as you do, when I came across this one (i've hosted the images 3rd party and avoided HTML, if they don't work let me know. I had to snap them on the iPhone - so sorry for the lack of a close focus!!) : http://img249.imageshack.us/i/img0002tw.jpg/ It's a new cycle book for London, with routes, etc. Pretty standard fare. The problem? All the maps inside are blatant OSM copies (Mapnik, I assume) with route overlays posted. Now this wouldn't be a problem, obviously, except they are way WAY outside of CC-BY-SA. Firstly, they claim copyright over the whole book and 'every part therein.' To add insult to creative-commons injury they claim copyright over the mapping: http://img193.imageshack.us/i/img0003oz.jpg/ It's a little hard to make out (sorry again) but reads Copyright 2010 in maps, New Holland Publishers Ltd... then later states all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced.. You can read this page on the Amazon product page - http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Cycling-Guide-Exploring-Capital/dp/1847735460 - unfortunately none of the OSM maps pop up on that preview, at least not for me. For reference, there are maps for *each of the 30 routes* inside. All OSM except for some overview mapping which looks donated from the council. This is the best shot I could get of the OSM mapping being used : http://img707.imageshack.us/i/img0005na.jpg/ None of the maps have *any* accreditation back to OSM on them. The only place OSM is mentioned it on the very last page, very last line, where it says All other maps by Steve Dew using base maps by OpenStreetMap : http://img412.imageshack.us/i/img0004qh.jpg/ No mention of CC, no logo, no link, ect. Ironically, it doesn't list OSM or OCM as useful resources for cyclists ... I wonder why? So, in summary: - No attribution - Is a derived work released under Copyright I assume this hasn't been cleared and 'waived' by someone at OSM? Where can we go from here? I have an urge to go start flogging scanned copies and claim .. but surely as a derivative work this is also a work released under CC-BY-SA? if that's what it takes to stop corporations like New Holland from pilfering work like this. ;) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk have fun, Steve Coast / stevecoast.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
That's actually a pretty bad way to resolve the issue, since the publisher is liable for damages and you can absolve them of that and make things far worse by individually contacting or publishing these infringements pre-emptively. Unless you have a law degree. Individuals enforcing infringement cases will long term be a big mess because 1. of the above (you really have to have a clue about litigation and copyright law). If you send a infringement notice to them, then they can go to a judge and ask that the accusation be nullified. If you don't show up to the hearing, you lose and so can everyone else in OSM and they can be exempted from further prosecution. That's just one thing that can go wrong. Honestly - you need to know what you're doing. 2. it will give people the idea that the project is dangerous IP-wise because any Tom, Dick or Harry on the internet might try and claim infringement. I don't think we want to give that impressions. 3. it's nice to assume everyone has good intentions and doesn't mean to infringe. But that's not actually very likely once it hits the desk of the infringers legal team. They will make a bunch of legal assessments and also weigh the cost of settlement (financial and PR) and may well decide that a fight is better for the bottom line and negative PR on blogs is worth it, or means that we are unreasonable. So, it's best to start these things as a backchannel via a lawyer. Anyway. WSGR, our counsel have offered to train those who volunteer to work on these cases. As soon as the LWG is able to start this, I suggest a bunch of people sign up for that training. It'll most likely be remote - a bunch of slides/documents and a phone call or two. That way we will have the right skills to do this stuff. have fun, Steve Coast / stevecoast.com On Jun 2, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Grant Slater wrote: On 2 June 2010 21:03, Phil Monger phil...@gmail.com wrote: So I was looking through some cycle books, as you do, when I came across this one (i've hosted the images 3rd party and avoided HTML, if they don't work let me know. I had to snap them on the iPhone - so sorry for the lack of a close focus!!) : Hi Phil This has already been address and the publisher has promised to make a correction. Complaint: http://compton.nu/2010/05/how-not-to-credit-openstreetmap/ Resolution: http://compton.nu/2010/05/well-done-new-holland-pubishers/ The current edition does have a tiny attribution at the back inside cover if I recall. Regards Grant ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Phil, Phil Monger wrote: It's a new cycle book for London, with routes, etc. Pretty standard fare. The problem? All the maps inside are blatant OSM copies (Mapnik, I assume) with route overlays posted. Now this wouldn't be a problem, obviously, except they are way WAY outside of CC-BY-SA. A general rule of thumb is, try not to get over-excited about these things. In most cases they really happen out of negligence. None of the maps have *any* accreditation back to OSM on them. The only place OSM is mentioned it on the very last page, very last line, where it says All other maps by Steve Dew using base maps by OpenStreetMap ... which is already better than other uses we've seen. I think the already-quoted approach by TomH http://compton.nu/2010/05/how-not-to-credit-openstreetmap/ was very sensible, and calm, and worked well. In the long run we might even have a fleshed-out data working group (i.e. more than the odd bunch of already-overworked people we currently are) to take on such cases, like Steve suggested in his latest comment. Interestingly, if you read the comment section of Tom's post, there's a comment by one John Gilmore who is of the opinion that a book using some CC-BY-SA maps must be completely CC-BY-SA, an idea which I do not share - I think the book is a collected work where only the maps have to be shared. The OSM book that I have written has a lot of maps as well, and they are not always individually credited; but somewhere in the first few pages where it says that all this is copyrighted and you'll get shot if you disobey, I added an extra passage saying This does not apply to the maps in this book which are from OpenStreetMap and licensed CC-BY-SA. Ironically, it doesn't list OSM or OCM as useful resources for cyclists ... I wonder why? This is really strange. I mean if OSM was useful enough to create the maps from... I assume this hasn't been cleared and 'waived' by someone at OSM? Where can we go from here? The only people who could clear something in that way, at least for now, is the community of all individuals who have contributed to these maps. I have an urge to go start flogging scanned copies and claim .. but surely as a derivative work this is also a work released under CC-BY-SA? if that's what it takes to stop corporations like New Holland from pilfering work like this. As I said, I would be quite cross if someone were to distribute scanned copies of my book because I don't believe that depicting OSM maps in it makes the whole thing derived. But it is an interesting question - if someone violates CC-BY-SA by taking OSM data and releasing it under his copyright, and you then violate his license by simply taking the stuff and distributing it CC-BY-SA, can he sue you? Can you be jailed for stealing from a thief? Probably depends on jurisdiction. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Frederick, I appreciate your view on this. but I must passionately disagree. Collected works is set up to allow multiple sets of data / licenses to operate together under one bound work. For example, a book of collected maps about London could include OSM as CC-BY-SA but in itself, as a collection, remain (C) , and allow other maps to be (C) or other. This is entirely derivative. The maps and route descriptions operate together as *one piece of work* - indeed descriptions of the ways, place names, distances, directions (ect) used in *the text* are taken from *the mapping*. The text couldn't / wouldn't be there without the mapping, leaving the entire thing as one piece of work, regardless of the fact the maps are images, and the words are words. You wouldn't take 12 songs under CC-By-SA, wrap them together in an album, add cover art, add liner notes, change a couple of words in the songs, and then be able to claim the entire CD is your copyright. I don't think New Holland posting a message on a forum saying Oh, gosh, is that wrong? We won't do it again.. is a good enough answer. I can cite examples of books and magasines getting into a LOT of mess for incorrectly attributing stock images, so how should an entire book, written around the premise that the maps are free be exempt from this license? Surely .. SURELY the whole point of a CC-BY-SA license in the first place is to *stop* someone taking it and using it in a proprietary media, and instead encouraging people to give something back by making their re-use re-useable? Or am I just tilting at windmills? Phil On 2 June 2010 21:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Phil, Phil Monger wrote: It's a new cycle book for London, with routes, etc. Pretty standard fare. The problem? All the maps inside are blatant OSM copies (Mapnik, I assume) with route overlays posted. Now this wouldn't be a problem, obviously, except they are way WAY outside of CC-BY-SA. A general rule of thumb is, try not to get over-excited about these things. In most cases they really happen out of negligence. None of the maps have *any* accreditation back to OSM on them. The only place OSM is mentioned it on the very last page, very last line, where it says All other maps by Steve Dew using base maps by OpenStreetMap ... which is already better than other uses we've seen. I think the already-quoted approach by TomH http://compton.nu/2010/05/how-not-to-credit-openstreetmap/ was very sensible, and calm, and worked well. In the long run we might even have a fleshed-out data working group (i.e. more than the odd bunch of already-overworked people we currently are) to take on such cases, like Steve suggested in his latest comment. Interestingly, if you read the comment section of Tom's post, there's a comment by one John Gilmore who is of the opinion that a book using some CC-BY-SA maps must be completely CC-BY-SA, an idea which I do not share - I think the book is a collected work where only the maps have to be shared. The OSM book that I have written has a lot of maps as well, and they are not always individually credited; but somewhere in the first few pages where it says that all this is copyrighted and you'll get shot if you disobey, I added an extra passage saying This does not apply to the maps in this book which are from OpenStreetMap and licensed CC-BY-SA. Ironically, it doesn't list OSM or OCM as useful resources for cyclists ... I wonder why? This is really strange. I mean if OSM was useful enough to create the maps from... I assume this hasn't been cleared and 'waived' by someone at OSM? Where can we go from here? The only people who could clear something in that way, at least for now, is the community of all individuals who have contributed to these maps. I have an urge to go start flogging scanned copies and claim .. but surely as a derivative work this is also a work released under CC-BY-SA? if that's what it takes to stop corporations like New Holland from pilfering work like this. As I said, I would be quite cross if someone were to distribute scanned copies of my book because I don't believe that depicting OSM maps in it makes the whole thing derived. But it is an interesting question - if someone violates CC-BY-SA by taking OSM data and releasing it under his copyright, and you then violate his license by simply taking the stuff and distributing it CC-BY-SA, can he sue you? Can you be jailed for stealing from a thief? Probably depends on jurisdiction. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Hi, Phil Monger wrote: This is entirely derivative. The maps and route descriptions operate together as *one piece of work* - indeed descriptions of the ways, place names, distances, directions (ect) used in *the text* are taken from *the mapping*. The text couldn't / wouldn't be there without the mapping, leaving the entire thing as one piece of work, regardless of the fact the maps are images, and the words are words. Mh. Maybe. I am not convinced. If someone took an OSM map and said: Oh, this looks like a nice bike tour, let me write this up in words - yes, that would be derivative. But if someone actually does the trip and then writes up where he's been... For example, in an OSM context, I consider it perfectly legal to use a proprietary map for the planning of a mapping party (i.e. for making the cake and deciding where to send people). Once they actually go there, cycle down the road, and note down the street sign, it doesn't matter what gave them the idea to go there - we are allowed to use the data that has been recorded. I'd grant the same rights to the cycle book writer *provided* that he has actually been there. I would look for hints in his description which are not on the map (e.g. from here you have a nice view of this and that in the distance or watch out for the potholes here or so). If there are indeed none, and the whole text could have been done by someone who just looked at the OSM map and never was there in the first place, then yes, that would be derived - but in that case, abusing OSM data is perhaps the smallest problem with the book ;-) You wouldn't take 12 songs under CC-By-SA, wrap them together in an album, add cover art, add liner notes, change a couple of words in the songs, and then be able to claim the entire CD is your copyright. No, but nobody says that. What you say is take 12 songs under CC-BY-SA, wrap them together in an album, add cover art and liner notes, and you have to release cover art and liner notes under CC-BY-SA, whereas I say that you *only* have to release the songs. I don't think New Holland posting a message on a forum saying Oh, gosh, is that wrong? We won't do it again.. is a good enough answer. I can cite examples of books and magasines getting into a LOT of mess for incorrectly attributing stock images, so how should an entire book, written around the premise that the maps are free be exempt from this license? In my eyes they are not exempt. But mistakes happen and I think their reaction is ok. This is often overlooked but I think that by printing this book and making it available *even* in the form it currently has, they are already *improving* the standing of OSM rather than hurting the project. So yes, they're technically in violation of the license but I recommend cutting them some slack and acknowledging that never before has anyone in the UK made such a convincing public statement of OSM being good quality. Surely .. SURELY the whole point of a CC-BY-SA license in the first place is to *stop* someone taking it and using it in a proprietary media, and instead encouraging people to give something back by making their re-use re-useable? Or am I just tilting at windmills? I think that their re-use must be re-useable, i.e. their maps (which they seem to have slightly improved re. the labelling) must be free for others to copy. I think they have acknowledged that, and I don't think we should aim to make trouble for them just because others have got into trouble for much less. (I'm somewhat uneasy about fighting fire with fire - just because the big greedy bastards sue everyone about the tiniest violations, doesn't mean we have to as well.) And I don't agree with you about the rest of the book; I still think it is not a derived work. But I don't have it in front of me so if on closer inspection it really looks like they haven't even bothered to cycle their roads then that's a problem. I know I'm perhaps too pragmatic here but the question I ask is: Would it have been better (for OSM) if the book hadn't been printed? And my answer is no. Of course others would say yes. And of course it would have been best if the book had been printed with proper attribution and license, which the next edition will no doubt be. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?
Well, Frederik, here is a challenge: -Work out a 10 mile cycle trip or walk around your town / city, taking advantage of sights you want to see, streets you know are good for it, ect. Cycle it once or twice, getting distracted and taking twice as long as needed to take photographs on the way round. - Write a concise, *accurate* and thorough description of the route, directions and distances. - Do not refer to a map for part 2. As soon as you use OSM for any of what's in point 2 then your work is dependent on OSM, and therefore derivative, for all the same reasons we can't check the spelling of a street on Google maps, they can't lift street names, turns and distances from OSM. Since they don't credit anyone else for this data verification they must have checked it all against OSM. This is where the headache sets in, frankly. Some sections, paragraphs and sentences are derivative, and others (advice on cycle hire) is clearly not. Where do you break it down? lower two thirds of this page CC-BY-SA? The only acceptable solution is to look at the piece of work as a whole and ask : Is this piece of work, in whole, dependent on the data? To which I firmly believe it is. Collective works is / was never designed to cover a single book, by one Author and with a singular intent. Every *single* book I can find in my house lists copyright as this work not these works - except a cartography book, which states where these works.. - which leads strong credence to the idea that a book like this is no collective work Now its not just about what you and I think, or what any court would uphold; it's about intent. OSM uses the SA flavour of the license because they do not want it to be used to prop up proprietary, copyrighted works. Surely? This needs to get nailed down before the next one pops up and then says oopsie! won't do it again! and so on. Looking around on forums and such, its not an isolated incident. If the we outsourced this, it's not our fault line is going to wash then it needs to move down the chain and we need to look at what companies are ripping of cartography and hamming up the license. Where, indeed, is New Holland's ported license statement from their outsourced guy? I would be fascinated to know what they signed. Really. I'm not suggesting harsh punitive action, but this matter should not be taken lightly. At the very least, given the flagrant breach, they should run an insert with each copy explaining to users they can copy these maps (and .. perhaps .. route description) and redistribute if they feel the need? It is not *just* a few images used to show where the route is, there are many many full page maps, and the mapping is a *major feature* of the entire book. I want OSM to be used in this way, but properly - and with according advantages given to end users. Companies *need to know* they cannot assert copyright over the mapping they take in this way. Phil - On 3 June 2010 00:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Phil Monger wrote: This is entirely derivative. The maps and route descriptions operate together as *one piece of work* - indeed descriptions of the ways, place names, distances, directions (ect) used in *the text* are taken from *the mapping*. The text couldn't / wouldn't be there without the mapping, leaving the entire thing as one piece of work, regardless of the fact the maps are images, and the words are words. Mh. Maybe. I am not convinced. If someone took an OSM map and said: Oh, this looks like a nice bike tour, let me write this up in words - yes, that would be derivative. But if someone actually does the trip and then writes up where he's been... For example, in an OSM context, I consider it perfectly legal to use a proprietary map for the planning of a mapping party (i.e. for making the cake and deciding where to send people). Once they actually go there, cycle down the road, and note down the street sign, it doesn't matter what gave them the idea to go there - we are allowed to use the data that has been recorded. I'd grant the same rights to the cycle book writer *provided* that he has actually been there. I would look for hints in his description which are not on the map (e.g. from here you have a nice view of this and that in the distance or watch out for the potholes here or so). If there are indeed none, and the whole text could have been done by someone who just looked at the OSM map and never was there in the first place, then yes, that would be derived - but in that case, abusing OSM data is perhaps the smallest problem with the book ;-) You wouldn't take 12 songs under CC-By-SA, wrap them together in an album, add cover art, add liner notes, change a couple of words in the songs, and then be able to claim the entire CD is your copyright. No, but nobody says that. What you say is take 12 songs under CC-BY-SA, wrap them together in an album, add cover art and liner notes, and you have to release
