Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
Hi, (me) >>> Assuming for a moment that my contributions to OSM are copyrightable and >>> the CC-BY-SA license is valid, then if I license my data CC-BY-SA I have >>> the right to request anyone using my data, or building or using derived >>> versions thereof, to provide attribution in the form I believe is >>> required, and I can drag them to court if they don't. (Ævar) >> No you don't. You've just given them permission to use your works >> under a license which dictates that distributors must attribute you >> within the limited scope demanded of them by the license. As long as >> they're otherwise in compliance you have no right to demand additional >> attribution not required by the license. (Martin) > could you point me to the limitation part of the attribution in cc-by-sa? > AFAIK you have to attribute all contributors. Multiple misunderstandings here. What I wanted to say, initially, was that the contributor decides which form of attribution he finds appropriate. Ævar interpreted this as "the contributor can demand any kind of attribution" and said that I was wrong. Ævar is right in saying that the license does not allow the contributor to demand ANY kind of attribution. In fact it says: "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing by conveying the name (or pseudonym if applicable) of the Original Author if supplied; the title of the Work if supplied; to the extent reasonably practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work..." So the author may only request that his name/pseudonym, the title of the work, and an URL that he specifies are used as credits. (Still this is vastly more than supported by OSM.) There is of course the soft factor of "reasonable to the medium or means", and it is always the licensor who has to find it reasonable. If you make a TV production and only list the licensor's name in the credits at the end, and the licensor then says that it would have been perfectly reasonable to show his name in the picture while his work was shown, then he *can* drag you to court over this - and whether he will win is anyone's guess. Now you again misunderstood Ævar to say that a collective attribution is allowed. Ævar never said that. There is an "opt-out" clause for attribution, where CC-BY-SA says: "If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any reference to such Licensor or the Original Author, as requested." So the licensors have the right to request that you remove the attribution; but it would be a far stretch to claim that by taking part in OSM licensors automatically do so. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
2009/10/25 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Frederik Ramm > wrote: > > Assuming for a moment that my contributions to OSM are copyrightable and > > the CC-BY-SA license is valid, then if I license my data CC-BY-SA I have > > the right to request anyone using my data, or building or using derived > > versions thereof, to provide attribution in the form I believe is > > required, and I can drag them to court if they don't. > > No you don't. You've just given them permission to use your works > under a license which dictates that distributors must attribute you > within the limited scope demanded of them by the license. As long as > they're otherwise in compliance you have no right to demand additional > attribution not required by the license. > > could you point me to the limitation part of the attribution in cc-by-sa? AFAIK you have to attribute all contributors. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
Andy Allan wrote: > There's no "where possible" regarding the license What this section of the Legal FAQ actually says (which I think is an admirable model of clarity, but then I did write it :p ) is that hyperlinks should be provided where hyperlinks are possible. They are not possible in printed works, unless you have managed to create some magic kind of touchy clicky paper where you can press some words and a website magically appears. If you've done that then frankly I wonder why you're spending your days playing with TIGER data. ;) If they are not possible, then it says you should provide the URI. The FAQ departs slightly from the CC licence in that it recommends you point people to www.creativecommons.org rather than http://www.creativecommons.org/whateverthefuckingobscureurlisforthelicence/cc/by/sa/up/yer/bum/2.0 . But if we're at the stage of complying with the exact wording of the licence, then hey, let's not forget that strictly you have to attribute every contributor to OSM the instant you touch the data. The letter of CC-BY-SA does not permit any opt-out for credit to the Original Author, i.e. the mapper. If I may borrow your wording, "reasonable to the medium or means You are utilizing" [sic] does not include "where possible". So, y'know, I look forward to every CloudMade tile incorporating a 5,000-strong list of contributors, which swells to 5,001 the next time some retard decides to globally change of shop=groceries to shop= greengrocers or whatever it was. Given that www.whitehouse.gov/change still doesn't have any pointer to CC, at all, then I suspect we're some way off that. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/osm-copyright-violation--tp25938836p26010906.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
On 21 Oct 2009, at 18:58, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Peter Miller wrote: >> Sure, so lets get that page showing how things should be onto the >> wiki > > I think we've got that bit already: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F Maybe it would be worth having a single page for this to make it easier to find and direct to? Shaun ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
On 20 Oct 2009, at 12:01, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 20/10/09 11:36, Peter Miller wrote: > >> On 20 Oct 2009, at 11:03, Sam Larsen wrote: >> >>> I am looking into the proper attribution of OSM in a tiled web >>> mapping scenario. I know the guidelines on attribution can be found >>> on the wiki - and i have read them. >>> There is also the list of non-conforming sites: >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution >>> Does anyone think, we should have a list of 'conforming' sites - as >>> the CloudMade maps and even the main www.openstreetmap.org are >>> listed as not having proper attribution. >> >> I think we should be kicking arse to get better conformance on this >> rather than accepting that major websites and players within the >> community are not conforming. > > I think we should start by asking people nicely before we get all > medieval on their arses, don't you? I believe we have already asked nicely, but I am not actually suggesting that anyone applies their footwear to anyone else's trouser fabric of course, only that we should do what is necessary to ensure that we have our house in order before expecting the same from others. As Frederick points out however, any contributor can challenge any user of the data on their attribution of the contributors work. > > Incidentally I would also point out that much of that page is the work > of one especially vociferous individual and there is considerable > debate > among other people as to whether all the claims made there are > accurate. > > I for example added text disputing whether openstreetmap.org was > lacking > attribution and the user in question simply reverted that edit without > any comment or discussion. > > The main issue of debate surrounds exactly what forms of attribution > are/are not valid. Sure, so lets get that page showing how things should be onto the wiki and then make sure all the projects close to OSM comply and then we can work out from there (and also ensure that the list of sites lacking proper attribution is accurate). Regards, Peter > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://www.compton.nu/ > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
- Original Message > From: Frederik Ramm > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Sent: Tuesday, 20 October, 2009 13:13:31 > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution > > Hi, > > Tom Hughes wrote: > > The main issue of debate surrounds exactly what forms of attribution > > are/are not valid. > > And this is not made easier by the fact that what is valid and what not > is not the community's decision but (within the confines of the license > text) that of the individual contributor. > > Assuming for a moment that my contributions to OSM are copyrightable and > the CC-BY-SA license is valid, then if I license my data CC-BY-SA I have > the right to request anyone using my data, or building or using derived > versions thereof, to provide attribution in the form I believe is > required, and I can drag them to court if they don't. So it seems I have stumbled back on to the license debate. > > So even if the attribution you provide looks ok to the majority of the > community, it only needs "one especially vociferous individual" who has > contributed to the data you are using to cause you trouble. I guess this will only be resolved / improved by ODbL. Until that time, i guess the more attribution the better and following the guidelines on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ will suffice. > > Bye > Frederik > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-t...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Proper attribution
Hi, Tom Hughes wrote: > The main issue of debate surrounds exactly what forms of attribution > are/are not valid. And this is not made easier by the fact that what is valid and what not is not the community's decision but (within the confines of the license text) that of the individual contributor. Assuming for a moment that my contributions to OSM are copyrightable and the CC-BY-SA license is valid, then if I license my data CC-BY-SA I have the right to request anyone using my data, or building or using derived versions thereof, to provide attribution in the form I believe is required, and I can drag them to court if they don't. So even if the attribution you provide looks ok to the majority of the community, it only needs "one especially vociferous individual" who has contributed to the data you are using to cause you trouble. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
