Hi Phillip,
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Barnett, Phillip wrote:
As I understand it, while the copyright of the paper as a whole is owned
by the publisher, an image which uses OSM data will be copyright OSM,
True.
not the publisher. Not really so unusual, open any newspaper or magazine
and look at the photographs - almost all of them will have a Corbis
credit or photographers name (ie implicit copyright notice)
Same thing for your case.
Yes, except that in a newspaper/magazine they would have obtained a
license from the copyright holder to reproduce the image (probably not
just in print but in many other ways too). OSM's licence does allow the
reproduction of the data, but that reproduction (assuming that it is a
derivative work) would then be under CC-by-SA license. My worry is that IF
the paper as a WHOLE was considered a derivative work then the publisher
would be forced to license the whole thing as CC-by-SA, which they won't
consent to. If the image itself is derived, but the paper is a collective
work, then that's OK [still need to know what the accepted form of
attribution for OSM is, though :-( ].
(Richard: thanks for your opinion re collective work, BTW.)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Common_licence_interpretations
isn't overly helpful in this regard, because it states:
If you overlay OSM data with your own data created from other sources
(for example you going out there with a GPS receiver) and the layers are
kept separate and independent, and the OSM layer is unchanged, then you
may have created a collective work.
My images in print clearly don't keep the OSM data independent (my
overlays are on top of it). Of course, the image that would count as a
derived work is identifiably separate from the remainder of the paper.
So... With my common sense hat on, I would credit OSM and note that my
images are CC-by-SA, but the remainder of the paper is under the usual
publisher's copyright. With my pendantic legalist hat on, I'm not
certain that this is what the license says. Or am I missing the obvious?
Is a a paper obviously a collective work?
Has anyone published OSM data in a paper before? (My guess is the
answer is yes...)
Thoughts?
David.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Cottingham
Sent: 21 February 2008 15:19
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Using an extract from OSM in an academic paper
Hi All,
I'm sure this question's been asked before, but I've searched the
archives
and can't find an answer...
I'm using OSM data as part of my research, and one of the resulting
papers
that I'm in the process of writing will have some images that combine a
small amount of OSM data (most of the city of Cambridge, UK) with my own
layers.
In order to be published, I must either own all copyright on the
contents,
or be licensed to use whichever parts I do not hold copyright in.
Can anyone enlighten me as to:
- How should OSM be attributed as the source of the data? (e.g. Map
data
from Open Street Map, under CC-SA license).
- Can I, despite the fact that the images I create that utilise OSM
data are classed as derived works and hence the images should be
dsitributed under the CC-SA license (correct me if I'm wrong!),
still publish those images in a paper whose copyright will be owned by
the
publisher?
It's the second of these points that is particularly bothering me!
Thanks,
David.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
