Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
Dave, Dave F. wrote: I'm just catching up with this thread can't believe what I've just read. You bleat whinge ... thanks ... about people talking legal in other threads yet here, in legal, you admit that your advice to others that's it's OK to trace Bing (under any license) has no foundation other than a guess a feeling. We have a direct statement from Microsoft saying it's ok to trace. If that's no foundation other tahn a guess a feeling for you then you're free to refrain from using Bing imagery - however I think that's bad judgement on your part. I'm looking for concrete evidence it would be better if you kept quiet until you had some Absolutely not. I have written that what we have is enough FOR ME to start tracing, and that's what it is (in fact, I have already traced a number of buildings and roads and am continuing to do so). If it's not enough FOR YOU, then you're free to do other things. However, as others have pointed out, what we have from Bing now is already *much* more that we ever had from Yahoo in terms of written permission - and I cannot remember you being equally over-cautious about Yahoo. Why? 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] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19/12/10 10:30, Andrew Harvey wrote: Where is this direct statement from Microsoft that says derived information from aerial imagery delivered through their map api can be licensed under a CT compatible license? Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. The licence PDF states: Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. openstreetmaps.org [sic] It's absolutely clear that if they don't even know the proper domain name for OpenStreetMap and didn't even spell check the document (Imagerty) that they have taken little care over this. I've not seen this license published on a Microsoft/Bing owned web-site so any cautious person would be prudent to doubt even the authenticity of this text. Personally I'm sure it's a genuine attempt by Bing to license something to OSM. I think they are trying to license the right for some applications to access their imagery api, with the additional constraints that any resulting edits are contributed to OSM. The agreement makes no observation or comment about the licenses involved (CC, ODbL, CT, DbCL) and would have to be considered a separate matter. In other words, this license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works under any particular license, over and above what was already there. If we couldn't do it before, we can't do it now, but that also implies that if we can do it now we were also allowed to do it before, although we may not have had the right to use their API and/or an application to do that. Agreeing to the CTs is a condition of doing so. - Rob. ___ 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] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
For the record 1) I accept that the Microsoft Licence[1] to use Bing imagery is an early version, and we have been told it will be revised 2) I suspect that Microsoft do intend that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM However: - Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use? On 19/12/10 10:30, Andrew Harvey wrote: Where is this direct statement from Microsoft that says derived information from aerial imagery delivered through their map api can be licensed under a CT compatible license? Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. The licence PDF states: Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. Which is NOT the same as stating Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. Indeed, had Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, then I suspect you would have pointed to a paragraph which backed up that assertion. As I've written before[2] the only direct mention Microsoft have made of derived data made from tracing Bing Imagery is their statement that it isn't allowed [3]. However, as I stated at the state of this message I suspect that Microsoft intend that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, I also suspect that they intended the wording of the licence [1] to make it clear. On that (admittedly probably unsound from a legal point of view), basis I have been tracing from Bing. David Agreeing to the CTs is a condition of doing so. - Rob. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/d8/Bing_license.pdf [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005305.html [3] http://www.microsoft.com/maps/assets/docs/terms.aspx ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: On 19 December 2010 14:40, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: The licence PDF states: Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. Which is NOT the same as stating Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. Indeed, had Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, then I suspect you would have pointed to a paragraph which backed up that assertion. As I've written before[2] the only direct mention Microsoft have made of derived data made from tracing Bing Imagery is their statement that it isn't allowed [3]. Have you read? Microsoft mention a whole lot more than what link to http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx Try the google cache version: http://bit.ly/eUjkKS What you link to in [3] is Bing's standard terms for everyone else... Not what applies for OSM. Like I said, what applies for OSM only refers to the use of some applications. It make no grant of rights to derive works from their imagery. Without an explict override I'd expect Microsoft to have a very good case if they wanted to. But as David and I both said, we believe that it is their intent to allow. I've seem some crappy license agreements in my time so nothing unusual about this one. 80n ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:32 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: In other words, this license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works under any particular license, over and above what was already there. That's probably a combination of the fact that Microsoft doesn't own that right in the first place and the fact that tracing a map doesn't create a derived work. If we couldn't do it before, we can't do it now, but that also implies that if we can do it now we were also allowed to do it before, although we may not have had the right to use their API and/or an application to do that. Not quite true. Before it may have been a violation of the TOS. Now it quite clearly isn't. Nothing to do with copyright law, but as was said, better than what OSM has with Yahoo, which is basically the same thing without any of it being in writing. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Termsof Use?
- Original Message - From: Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 3:29 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Termsof Use? On 19 December 2010 14:40, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: The licence PDF states: Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. Which is NOT the same as stating Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. Indeed, had Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, then I suspect you would have pointed to a paragraph which backed up that assertion. As I've written before[2] the only direct mention Microsoft have made of derived data made from tracing Bing Imagery is their statement that it isn't allowed [3]. Have you read? Microsoft mention a whole lot more than what link to http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx Try the google cache version: http://bit.ly/eUjkKS Yes Grant, I have read both of those, in particular the statement on both which says To learn more and see the full terms of use, please see the Bing Maps Imagery Editor license. Therefore to comment on the terms of use I decided to refer to the licence, and not the blog posts you refer to, since the blogs tell me to refer to the licence. What you link to in [3] is Bing's standard terms for everyone else... Not what applies for OSM. Could you please refer me to the source for why these terms do not apply to OSM? Particularly in view of the fact that, as I referred to earlier, in the Bing Maps Imagery Editor license it says the terms do apply (see section 6) We have permission to derive NEW works from their imagery on condition that the new works go into OSM. Good, please show me where this is clearly stated. Then we can end the discussion. In fact, as I have also pointed out before, it is unclear that Bing Maps Imagery Editor license actually apply to end users anyway, in which case the only bit applicable to end users is [3] which says deriving works is not allowed. David Also for fun... openstreetmapS.org _IS_ an OpenStreetMap domain and belongs to the OSM. I spent ages getting it back from domain squatters because it is such a common typo. / Grant However, as I stated at the state of this message I suspect that Microsoft intend that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, I also suspect that they intended the wording of the licence [1] to make it clear. On that (admittedly probably unsound from a legal point of view), basis I have been tracing from Bing. David [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/d8/Bing_license.pdf [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005305.html [3] http://www.microsoft.com/maps/assets/docs/terms.aspx ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
- Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 4:34 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use? On 12/19/2010 02:40 PM, David Groom wrote: For the record 1) I accept that the Microsoft Licence[1] to use Bing imagery is an early version, and we have been told it will be revised 2) I suspect that Microsoft do intend that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM Sure. And I accept that it would be bad if the wording of anything interfered with that intent. However: - Original Message - From: Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org Any updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Application (even if not published to third parties) must be contributed back to openstreetmaps.org. Which is NOT the same as stating Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM. [Nicking Grant's link] http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx Microsoft is pleased to announce the royalty-free use of the Bing Maps Imagery Editor API, allowing the Open Street Map community to use Bing Maps imagery via the API as a backdrop to your OSM map editors. The OSM community can use Bing maps imagery in OSM map editors, and that data must be contributed back to OSM. I agree that Microsoft have not made a statement using the form of words that you are seeking. If this is causing uncertainty that is bad, and my experience is that redundant statements in licences can save a lot of argument. What I am saying is that their various press releases and blogs made by their employees show an intent that tracing from imagery should be allowed, but that this is not yet backed up by the wording of the first draft of the licence. As I'm not a lawyer I don't know what legal standing press releases and blogs have. David But also I agree with Frederik that the current statements are good enough to be going on with. They contain permission to use the imagery, and *require* that the results be contributed to OSM. - Rob. ___ 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] Someone already had a look at the Bing Termsof Use?
On 19 December 2010 16:53, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net wrote: Have you read? Microsoft mention a whole lot more than what link to http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx Try the google cache version: http://bit.ly/eUjkKS Yes Grant, I have read both of those, in particular the statement on both which says To learn more and see the full terms of use, please see the Bing Maps Imagery Editor license. And the Bing Maps Imagery Editor license link points to the OpenGeoData blog post which has the license + downloadable PDF. http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details Therefore to comment on the terms of use I decided to refer to the licence, and not the blog posts you refer to, since the blogs tell me to refer to the licence. Download the license from the OpenGeoData post, it is called Bing Maps Imagery Editor API License FINAL.pdf What you link to in [3] is Bing's standard terms for everyone else... Not what applies for OSM. Could you please refer me to the source for why these terms do not apply to OSM? Particularly in view of the fact that, as I referred to earlier, in the Bing Maps Imagery Editor license it says the terms do apply (see section 6) Open JOSM or Potlatch2, the Terms-Of-Use link that is specified is: http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details And sure, this should be more explict. We have permission to derive NEW works from their imagery on condition that the new works go into OSM. Good, please show me where this is clearly stated. Then we can end the discussion. Better detailed here: http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 And now add to that we have explit permission to use the imagery In fact, as I have also pointed out before, it is unclear that Bing Maps Imagery Editor license actually apply to end users anyway, in which case the only bit applicable to end users is [3] which says deriving works is not allowed. See above. / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Termsof Use?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: Download the license from the OpenGeoData post, it is called Bing Maps Imagery Editor API License FINAL.pdf That's quite curious. Several non-Microsoft sources have indicated that the license will be subject to future revisions. And yet the file name of this document claims it to be FINAL. Like I said, I've seen some crappy licenses... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse?
Because your statement is simply wrong in the generality you made it. For example in Germany simple Lichtbilder (which would include areial photographs) have the same protection as photographic works of art (Lichtbildwerke) with the exception of the proctection term. And there is at least one German higher court judgement in which tracing a non-artistic photograph was considered copyright infringement Simon PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing right now is going on in -Germany- - Original Message - From: Anthony o...@inbox.org To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse? On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: It may be true that tracing aerial images (what you probably wanted to state) does not create a derived work in -some- jurisdictions, but anything else I wouldn't be so sure of. If you have nothing to add, why respond? ___ 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] Someone already had a look at the Bing TermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Because your statement is simply wrong in the generality you made it. Then show why I'm wrong, don't say that I may be right in some jurisdictions and you aren't sure if I'm right in others. For example in Germany simple Lichtbilder (which would include areial photographs) have the same protection as photographic works of art (Lichtbildwerke) with the exception of the proctection term. And there is at least one German higher court judgement in which tracing a non-artistic photograph was considered copyright infringement None of that even shows that German courts use the term derivative work, let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the definition of that term. And the license being provided by Microsoft isn't even governed under the laws of Germany anyway. If you go back to the statement that I was responding to, you'll see that it said that the Microsoft license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works. It didn't say anything about Lichtbilder laws in Germany. PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing right now is going on in -Germany- And that matters why, exactly? Why would Microsoft issue a license, governed under the laws of the US, giving people permission to do something which is not restricted under US law, and is not something which Microsoft owns the rights to anyway? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?
Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote None of that even shows that German courts use the term derivative work, let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the definition of that term. It's extremly unlikely that a German court would use English :-). But in the specific case they did considered the derived work, the German equivalent of a derived work. In the absence of specific case law, naturally nobody will make any definite statement (just as I believe the discussion here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_in_deriving_from_aerial_photography doesn't), but you can compare similar cases. PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing right now is going on in -Germany- And that matters why, exactly? Because: If you go back to the statement that I was responding to, you'll see that it said that the Microsoft license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works. Does MS even have the rights to grant such a license in Germany? Simon ___ 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] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote None of that even shows that German courts use the term derivative work, let alone define tracings of aerial photographs to be under the definition of that term. It's extremly unlikely that a German court would use English :-). Well yeah, exactly. When I say that probably...tracing a map doesn't create a derived work, I certainly don't preclude the fact that some German law might impose some copyright-like, but not actually copyright, restrictions on the results of such tracing. Though I have yet to see any evidence that it does. But in the specific case they did considered the derived work, the German equivalent of a derived work. What case are you talking about? It wasn't one where someone was tracing an aerial photograph, was it? What is the German equivalent of a 'derived work'? And, if you're saying it's different, then how can you say it's equivalent? It's quite a leap to go from the fact that aerial photographs are protected by copyright law, which is probably true even here in the United States (with the note that aerial photographs are not the same as satellite photographs), to saying that a tracing of an aerial photograph is a derivative work. PS: and the relevance is that very likely the majority of bing tracing right now is going on in -Germany- And that matters why, exactly? Because: If you go back to the statement that I was responding to, you'll see that it said that the Microsoft license makes no grants of rights to publish derived works. Does MS even have the rights to grant such a license in Germany? Do they have the rights to grant such a license in the US? I doubt it. If you're concerned that tracing aerials might create a derived work (which I'm not), then you need a license from the copyright owner of the image, which is probably not Microsoft. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?
On 19/12/10 21:52, Anthony wrote: What is the German equivalent of a 'derived work'? And, if you're saying it's different, then how can you say it's equivalent? Your local copyright law almost certainly mentions adaptation rather than derived work. Your referring to derived work is therefore the use of an equivalent concept in your own legal system. It's quite a leap to go from the fact that aerial photographs are protected by copyright law, which is probably true even here in the United States (with the note that aerial photographs are not the same as satellite photographs), to saying that a tracing of an aerial photograph is a derivative work. If there isn't a copyright in the original, work that copies from it cannot infringe that copyright because it doesn't exist. If there is a copyright then producing a recognisable copy of some part of it will, modulo fair dealing (or fair use, which is its equivalent concept) it will infringe on that copyright. Tracing in the tracing paper sense will certainly do this. It was possible to infringe on copyright before digital copying existed... Now if you're talking about tracing ways from photos I would agree, philosophically, that it is a leap to regard those as derivatives. But if it's a leap the courts have made or that companies with more lawyers than OSM've got have made then that's what we have to deal with. If you're concerned that tracing aerials might create a derived work (which I'm not), then you need a license from the copyright owner of the image, which is probably not Microsoft. You need a licence from someone with sufficient rights to grant you that licence. Which in this case is Microsoft. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the BingTermsofUse?
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: On 19/12/10 21:52, Anthony wrote: What is the German equivalent of a 'derived work'? And, if you're saying it's different, then how can you say it's equivalent? Your local copyright law almost certainly mentions adaptation rather than derived work. Your referring to derived work is therefore the use of an equivalent concept in your own legal system. You mean the US legal system? The US code uses the term derivative work (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#103), as does much of the case law. It's quite a leap to go from the fact that aerial photographs are protected by copyright law, which is probably true even here in the United States (with the note that aerial photographs are not the same as satellite photographs), to saying that a tracing of an aerial photograph is a derivative work. If there isn't a copyright in the original, work that copies from it cannot infringe that copyright because it doesn't exist. Sure, but the reverse is not true. There can be copyright in the original, yet a work that copies (non-copyright parts) from it do not infringe that copyright. That is probably the situation with OSM-style tracing of aerial photographs. If there is a copyright then producing a recognisable copy of some part of it will, modulo fair dealing (or fair use, which is its equivalent concept) it will infringe on that copyright. I'm not sure if we disagree on substance, or if it's just a terminology thing. How would you reconcile that statement with Bauman v Fussell? There was copyright in the original. A recognisable copy of some part of the original was made. Would you call it a case of fair dealing? Now if you're talking about tracing ways from photos I would agree, philosophically, that it is a leap to regard those as derivatives. Yes, that is what I was talking about. Isn't that what this thread is about? But if it's a leap the courts have made or that companies with more lawyers than OSM've got have made then that's what we have to deal with. Is it a leap the courts have made? If it's just something being claimed by companies with more lawyers than OSM've got, then how should we deal with it? If you're concerned that tracing aerials might create a derived work (which I'm not), then you need a license from the copyright owner of the image, which is probably not Microsoft. You need a licence from someone with sufficient rights to grant you that licence. Which in this case is Microsoft. What makes you think Microsoft has sufficient rights to grant that license? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Terms of Use?
Dave F. writes: On 06/12/2010 09:55, Frederik Ramm wrote: The situation is sufficient for me to use Bing imagery for tracing. I'm not looking at the legal side of it, I'm just looking at the size of the PR disaster should Microsoft attempt to backtrack in any way. PR is more important than legal. I'm just catching up with this thread can't believe what I've just read. You bleat whinge about people talking legal in other threads yet here, in legal, you admit that your advice to others that's it's OK to trace Bing (under any license) has no foundation other than a guess a feeling. I'm looking for concrete evidence it would be better if you kept quiet until you had some The USA has a legal principle that says If Alice says ``Y'all have permission to do this'', Bill goes ahead and does it, then Alice has no recourse other than to withdraw permission. Specifically for licenses, it's called Reliance. And if Alice has said Y'all can do this forever, guess what? She has given up her ability to withdraw permission. So, by Reliance, Microsoft *could* tell us to stop, but they can't retroactively withdraw the permission they gave us in the past. Since Microsoft is a United States company, they need to abide by U.S. law. The real question here is: whether Microsoft believes that a posting on the official Bing blog is usable in court. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
