Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
Hi All,
This has come up before. HOT is part of a pilot for the initiative
Imagery to the Crowd (1). Representatives of HOT and the US
Government met multiple times in all day meetings to discuss what the
NextView license means as well as to have the vectors available under
ODbL.
You make it sound like nobody involved had permission to speak for the
OpenStreetMap Foundation. The Foundation and project would
potentially be put at risk by a failure in interpretation. I'd expect
LWG (at minimum, with Foundation legal representation and Board
oversight) would have to be involved for any such meeting. Otherwise,
you've got n-parties at a table making decisions for a party not
present.
Were any potential data donor, or imagery donor in this case, able to
state, I grant use of {dataset} to OpenStreetMap contributors for use
under the terms of the OpenStreetMap License and Contributor Terms,
well that might be a useful shortcut.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Nice idea, but OSM doesn't operate like that. If someone imports data, they
don't usually ask for the legal opinion of the OSMF or invite an OSMF
representative to a meeting. They just make sure the negotiated terms conforms
to the understanding of the ODbL, etc, invite community input, and then if all
seems ok, do it. Not to say, I wouldn't love to see an active and responsive
LWG that could provide guidance and help, but the OSMF just isn't operating at
that level. And in this specific case, there's really no issue to be concerned
about.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
From: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com
To: Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com; OSMF License Working Group
le...@osmfoundation.org
Cc: hot h...@openstreetmap.org; Licensing and other legal discussions.
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: [HOT] [OSM-legal-talk] Imagery license clarification needed
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
Hi All,
This has come up before. HOT is part of a pilot for the initiative
Imagery to the Crowd (1). Representatives of HOT and the US
Government met multiple times in all day meetings to discuss what the
NextView license means as well as to have the vectors available under
ODbL.
You make it sound like nobody involved had permission to speak for the
OpenStreetMap Foundation. The Foundation and project would
potentially be put at risk by a failure in interpretation. I'd expect
LWG (at minimum, with Foundation legal representation and Board
oversight) would have to be involved for any such meeting. Otherwise,
you've got n-parties at a table making decisions for a party not
present.
Were any potential data donor, or imagery donor in this case, able to
state, I grant use of {dataset} to OpenStreetMap contributors for use
under the terms of the OpenStreetMap License and Contributor Terms,
well that might be a useful shortcut.
___
HOT mailing list
h...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Hi,
i think Richard points to the right direction.
Richard Weait writes:
Were any potential data donor, or imagery donor in this case, able to
state, I grant use of {dataset} to OpenStreetMap contributors for use
under the terms of the OpenStreetMap License and Contributor Terms,
well that might be a useful shortcut.
i understand that often imagery is handed out in the context of
humanitarian aid and should only be used in this context.
For OSM to be on the safe side: Would it be possible to document the
permissions you have for tracing in a clearly understandable way in the
wiki? The current license text leaves a bit of uncertainty what a derived
imagery product is.
So why not simply add a clause saying Imagery is used by the members of
the HOT for providing humanitarian aid as expressed in our policy. Derived
data will be stored in the Openstretmap database in accordance with the
contributor terms and is available under the ODbL also after end of the
humanitarian project.
That way it's clear to OSM contributors as well as to data donors what is
going to happen.
if an imagery provider would not like the above sentence He wouldn't like
the current situation either and might cause trouble later. So it wouldn't
change anything and add more clarity to the process.
Stephan
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Detection of copyrighted data
Hello, I've recently posted this on the forum (http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22354). Do you have any ideas? The post in the forum says: The Brazilian community is growing and now we are facing a problem. Some contributors may be importing copyrighted data. While we are defining a workflow to handle that, I would like to know if there are any tools that could help us detect if: - any data was copied from another map (in .osm format), with or without some form of adulteration - any imported data was traced over some other imagery (particularly Google's) I would like to know also which copyright legislation applies: that of the regions of the imported data, or that of where the database is stored and the service is provided? Thank you in advance for any information. -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data location?
It would be interesting to know what kind of information is contained in TrackSource, I could imagine a potential way forward based on the ago old adage (well it is a couple of seconds old :-)): geometry is cheap, meta expensive If there is meta data (street names, other similar information) present in TrackSource that has actually been surveyed and not copied from somewhere, this could potentially be used together with our usual complement of addicted arm chair mappers tracing geometry from aerial imagery (which man need to be acquired in one form or another). Simon Am 28.08.2013 01:31, schrieb Fernando Trebien: Well, in this particular case, it is a bit complicated. Some of the data (though we can't tell which part of it) might have been traced over Google imagery, and Brazilian law might be more lenient as was the case of several US court cases (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#Maps). I fear that delving into subtle legal interpretations here doesn't help us anyway since it would be illegal in the UK to provide any data derived from Google's services, regardless of the location the data refers to. Brazil already has another open maps project called TrackSource (released under a CC-BY-SA license) and some people in that project have shown interest in contributing to OSM their own data, which was collected and refined over almost a decade. We know that we can't take the official released maps, but the contributors (which own their own data) are willing to upload their unlicensed data. That would be legal except for the fact that their community actively encouraged tracing using Google Earth (there are several records of that on the Internet). A considerable part of that data, however, was also mixed with personally collected tracklogs, some of it using very advanced survey techniques, but it is impossible to tell which data elements came from which source using their (rudimentary?) tools and database formats. In other words, they've never really worried about these licensing issues. Even though we are telling them to contribute only the data they are sure to be unrelated to Google, we're simply not sure if they are following our advice. Some have already started thinking of ways to automatically detect imports from TrackSource maps and report the changesets to OSMF for a mass reversal. Meanwhile I'm trying to prevent the TrackSource folks from losing interest in OSM. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data location? Ian has already given a good answer. So just a couple of further notes: Some more notes, from a slightly different perspective - The UK has as strong or stronger IP protection for map data than other countries, rendering the question moot most of the time. - As this question originated with an import, any such questions *should* be raised in the import proposal. My guess is that the DWG would tell the user to not import until they get clearance from the LWG. - What OSM does is flat out illegal in some places (North Korea being the typical example, but not the only one). I don't think anyone is particularly concerned, although contributors in such countries may be. Similarly, distributing non-official boundaries may be a problem, and it's impossible to satisfy countries on both sides of some boundaries at the same time. - When dealing with government data, the concerns have mainly been if it is legal in that country. Local governments near me will not license database rights because no such concept exists to them. I had more, but paused and forgot it. ___ 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] Which legislation applies: server or data location?
Interesting logic. Can we be sure about it? In fact, some mappers have argued that, even though they traced over Google's imagery, street names and POIs were surveyed (because Google's are often misplaced, misspelled, missing or just plain wrong), and this is precisely the information we currently lack the most. Another one is turn restrictions, which I believe follows the same logic. Even better, much of that data could be incorporated quite quickly using the conflation plug-in for JOSM, perhaps even the turn restrictions. Maybe the only problem is that their data does not tell us when this was not the case (no source tags or changeset comments or whatnot). But, in a way, it also doesn't tell anyone else. Legal accusations would be based on written communications found on Internet forums, and I'm not sure whether this would be enough. On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: It would be interesting to know what kind of information is contained in TrackSource, I could imagine a potential way forward based on the ago old adage (well it is a couple of seconds old :-)): geometry is cheap, meta expensive If there is meta data (street names, other similar information) present in TrackSource that has actually been surveyed and not copied from somewhere, this could potentially be used together with our usual complement of addicted arm chair mappers tracing geometry from aerial imagery (which man need to be acquired in one form or another). Simon Am 28.08.2013 01:31, schrieb Fernando Trebien: Well, in this particular case, it is a bit complicated. Some of the data (though we can't tell which part of it) might have been traced over Google imagery, and Brazilian law might be more lenient as was the case of several US court cases (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Derivative_works#Maps). I fear that delving into subtle legal interpretations here doesn't help us anyway since it would be illegal in the UK to provide any data derived from Google's services, regardless of the location the data refers to. Brazil already has another open maps project called TrackSource (released under a CC-BY-SA license) and some people in that project have shown interest in contributing to OSM their own data, which was collected and refined over almost a decade. We know that we can't take the official released maps, but the contributors (which own their own data) are willing to upload their unlicensed data. That would be legal except for the fact that their community actively encouraged tracing using Google Earth (there are several records of that on the Internet). A considerable part of that data, however, was also mixed with personally collected tracklogs, some of it using very advanced survey techniques, but it is impossible to tell which data elements came from which source using their (rudimentary?) tools and database formats. In other words, they've never really worried about these licensing issues. Even though we are telling them to contribute only the data they are sure to be unrelated to Google, we're simply not sure if they are following our advice. Some have already started thinking of ways to automatically detect imports from TrackSource maps and report the changesets to OSMF for a mass reversal. Meanwhile I'm trying to prevent the TrackSource folks from losing interest in OSM. On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Paul Norman penor...@mac.com wrote: From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Which legislation applies: server or data location? Ian has already given a good answer. So just a couple of further notes: Some more notes, from a slightly different perspective - The UK has as strong or stronger IP protection for map data than other countries, rendering the question moot most of the time. - As this question originated with an import, any such questions *should* be raised in the import proposal. My guess is that the DWG would tell the user to not import until they get clearance from the LWG. - What OSM does is flat out illegal in some places (North Korea being the typical example, but not the only one). I don't think anyone is particularly concerned, although contributors in such countries may be. Similarly, distributing non-official boundaries may be a problem, and it's impossible to satisfy countries on both sides of some boundaries at the same time. - When dealing with government data, the concerns have mainly been if it is legal in that country. Local governments near me will not license database rights because no such concept exists to them. I had more, but paused and forgot it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [HOT] Imagery license clarification needed
Hi All, I think that lawyers from the provider of the license interpreting the license as okay for use in OSM is no issue. Josh Campbell above is the lead for the project. Currently this project is up for an award, it is not putting the database at risk. On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote: i understand that often imagery is handed out in the context of humanitarian aid and should only be used in this context. For OSM to be on the safe side: Would it be possible to document the permissions you have for tracing in a clearly understandable way in the wiki? The current license text leaves a bit of uncertainty what a derived imagery product is. I can document in the wiki my understanding of it. The legal interpretation of the US government by their own lawyers that the initial use of the derived vectors need to be for humanitarian use, after that it is fine to remain under the ODbL license in OSM. The reason for this is the US Government-wide license for commercial satellite imagery is not supposed to cut into potential commercial sales of that imagery. So it would not be possible to release that imagery for what would be initially a commercial use. So why not simply add a clause saying Imagery is used by the members of the HOT for providing humanitarian aid as expressed in our policy. Derived data will be stored in the Openstretmap database in accordance with the contributor terms and is available under the ODbL also after end of the humanitarian project. The NextView license is the US Government-wide license utilized for commercial satellite imagery. It is not going to be possible to add a clause to it. Best, -Kate ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
