Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
All, On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-29 at 11:06:38 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote: The storage part is not true any more. Bing used OSM data to mask out military areas in Germany, so the Bing images are now automatically CC-BY-SA. No, they are not. If they did that (I haven't followed the related threads and I don't know exactly what happened) they would be in violation of our copyright. One of the way the could stop that violation would be to release the images under CC-BY-SA, another just as legitimate would be to stop distributing them. Having a license applying in an automatic way would not make sense: consider the case of product X owned by A and given under a restrictive license to B (the usual case with areal pics, btw); if B used X together with CC-BY-SA (or GPL) licensed product Y, A would find their product released under another license 1. against their will, 2. through no fault of their own. OK, I am officially more confused about this now than I was before asking. Thanks for all your input though. I should probably have asked the legal question separately in legal-talk. I am not a lawyer myself but I tend to agree with Elena / Simon on the matter of Bing violating the terms of the license / our copyright (whichever of the two). Whatever they did, I would say it's fair they take something back from OSM, they should just have said so. For the huge boost they gave to OSM, we should cut them some slack though. And what were 'we' going to do about it anyway? (That's a rhetoric question here, but we can follow up on legal-talk) I am still interested in instances of systematic (ab)use of Bing image tiles in OSM apps, and what your opinion is on use /abuse in the Imagery Analyzer[1]. This could impact our relation with Bing (which, according to the press, is just peachy). [1] http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/ -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:58:46PM -0600, Martijn van Exel wrote: Does anyone know of applications in the OSM ecosystem that systematically download large areas' worth of Bing Aerial tiles? The license[0] implies that this is not allowed because 1) you cannot 'copy, store, archive, or create a database of the content' (par.2) and 2) The storage part is not true any more. Bing used OSM data to mask out military areas in Germany, so the Bing images are now automatically CC-BY-SA. Any Bing images you have downloaded you can do with it what you want. They haven't updated their terms conditions yet, but I am sure Steve is working on that. It is a big company that moves slowly. Of course that doesn't say anything about the service. Bing doesn't have to give you access to those images. Thats a different issue and I can't say anything about that. Of course thats all for the old CC-BY-SA license. If I understand the new license correctly the images don't have to be under CC-BY-SA, but they would have to give us their updated geometries for the military areas. That would be interesting, because in some places they are better than the ones we have in OSM. But they did this based on the old license so thats all hypothetical. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
Sorry, but your statement wrt Bing imagery is not true (and very silly). Just because Bing/MS may have committed a minor breach of CC-by-SA 2.0 terms doesn't change anything wrt their rights in their products. You may naturally ask them to cease distributing such material and could potentially claim damages. But that is it. Simon Am 29.03.2012 11:06, schrieb Jochen Topf: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:58:46PM -0600, Martijn van Exel wrote: Does anyone know of applications in the OSM ecosystem that systematically download large areas' worth of Bing Aerial tiles? The license[0] implies that this is not allowed because 1) you cannot 'copy, store, archive, or create a database of the content' (par.2) and 2) The storage part is not true any more. Bing used OSM data to mask out military areas in Germany, so the Bing images are now automatically CC-BY-SA. Any Bing images you have downloaded you can do with it what you want. They haven't updated their terms conditions yet, but I am sure Steve is working on that. It is a big company that moves slowly. Of course that doesn't say anything about the service. Bing doesn't have to give you access to those images. Thats a different issue and I can't say anything about that. Of course thats all for the old CC-BY-SA license. If I understand the new license correctly the images don't have to be under CC-BY-SA, but they would have to give us their updated geometries for the military areas. That would be interesting, because in some places they are better than the ones we have in OSM. But they did this based on the old license so thats all hypothetical. Jochen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
Hi! The fact that Bing doesn't display the correct license means that they are in breach of the license (7a). It does *not* mean that they haven't accepted it. They automatically accept the license if they use the data (Par 8a). I still have those rights (7a again). (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode) And of course you are right: It doesn't change anything wrt their rights in their products. But it does change something wrt to *my* rights in their products. Lets haggle about this some more. It is so much fun when several people who all have no legal background discuss licensing. :-) Jochen On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:31:41AM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:31:41 +0200 From: Simon Poole si...@poole.ch To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles Sorry, but your statement wrt Bing imagery is not true (and very silly). Just because Bing/MS may have committed a minor breach of CC-by-SA 2.0 terms doesn't change anything wrt their rights in their products. You may naturally ask them to cease distributing such material and could potentially claim damages. But that is it. Simon Am 29.03.2012 11:06, schrieb Jochen Topf: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:58:46PM -0600, Martijn van Exel wrote: Does anyone know of applications in the OSM ecosystem that systematically download large areas' worth of Bing Aerial tiles? The license[0] implies that this is not allowed because 1) you cannot 'copy, store, archive, or create a database of the content' (par.2) and 2) The storage part is not true any more. Bing used OSM data to mask out military areas in Germany, so the Bing images are now automatically CC-BY-SA. Any Bing images you have downloaded you can do with it what you want. They haven't updated their terms conditions yet, but I am sure Steve is working on that. It is a big company that moves slowly. Of course that doesn't say anything about the service. Bing doesn't have to give you access to those images. Thats a different issue and I can't say anything about that. Of course thats all for the old CC-BY-SA license. If I understand the new license correctly the images don't have to be under CC-BY-SA, but they would have to give us their updated geometries for the military areas. That would be interesting, because in some places they are better than the ones we have in OSM. But they did this based on the old license so thats all hypothetical. Jochen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
On 2012-03-29 at 11:06:38 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote: The storage part is not true any more. Bing used OSM data to mask out military areas in Germany, so the Bing images are now automatically CC-BY-SA. No, they are not. If they did that (I haven't followed the related threads and I don't know exactly what happened) they would be in violation of our copyright. One of the way the could stop that violation would be to release the images under CC-BY-SA, another just as legitimate would be to stop distributing them. Having a license applying in an automatic way would not make sense: consider the case of product X owned by A and given under a restrictive license to B (the usual case with areal pics, btw); if B used X together with CC-BY-SA (or GPL) licensed product Y, A would find their product released under another license 1. against their will, 2. through no fault of their own. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
Am 29. März 2012 11:51 schrieb Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com: Having a license applying in an automatic way would not make sense: consider the case of product X owned by A and given under a restrictive license to B (the usual case with areal pics, btw); if B used X together with CC-BY-SA (or GPL) licensed product Y, A would find their product released under another license 1. against their will, 2. through no fault of their own. In this case A could sue B. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
All, On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-29 at 11:06:38 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote: The storage part is not true any more. Bing used OSM data to mask out military areas in Germany, so the Bing images are now automatically CC-BY-SA. No, they are not. If they did that (I haven't followed the related threads and I don't know exactly what happened) they would be in violation of our copyright. One of the way the could stop that violation would be to release the images under CC-BY-SA, another just as legitimate would be to stop distributing them. Having a license applying in an automatic way would not make sense: consider the case of product X owned by A and given under a restrictive license to B (the usual case with areal pics, btw); if B used X together with CC-BY-SA (or GPL) licensed product Y, A would find their product released under another license 1. against their will, 2. through no fault of their own. OK, I am officially more confused about this now than I was before asking. Thanks for all your input though. I should probably have asked the legal question separately in legal-talk. I am not a lawyer myself but I tend to agree with Elena / Simon on the matter of Bing violating the terms of the license / our copyright (whichever of the two). Whatever they did, I would say it's fair they take something back from OSM, they should just have said so. For the huge boost they gave to OSM, we should cut them some slack though. And what were 'we' going to do about it anyway? (That's a rhetoric question here, but we can follow up on legal-talk) I am still interested in instances of systematic (ab)use of Bing image tiles in OSM apps, and what your opinion is on use /abuse in the Imagery Analyzer[1]. This could impact our relation with Bing (which, according to the press, is just peachy). [1] http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/ -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I have studied copyright law and cases and have actual friend as copyright lawyer (rarity even these days). There are many ways how this is not even close to any substantial copyright violation, and very few how it could be. First of all, there's not enough proof of copyright violation. There's no proof that assumed deravative work is generated using our work (So far I haven't seen lot of it, only unofficial admittance). And if there's one, it's not very substantial to variant court case of copyright violation. And even if there is violation, one thing for sure - as several people in this tread already said, this doesn't make Bing photos automatically CC-BY-SA, no matter how someone would like this. As no written commercial app including GPL code is automatically GPL. Coders just violate copyright and they are given chance to remove it, or relicense code as copyleft license requires. Also in this case not all photos are impacted, only those with blured bits. Cheers, Peteris Krisjanis. C , 2012-03-29 08:22 -0600, Martijn van Exel rakstīja: All, On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' elena.valha...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-29 at 11:06:38 +0200, Jochen Topf wrote: The storage part is not true any more. Bing used OSM data to mask out military areas in Germany, so the Bing images are now automatically CC-BY-SA. No, they are not. If they did that (I haven't followed the related threads and I don't know exactly what happened) they would be in violation of our copyright. One of the way the could stop that violation would be to release the images under CC-BY-SA, another just as legitimate would be to stop distributing them. Having a license applying in an automatic way would not make sense: consider the case of product X owned by A and given under a restrictive license to B (the usual case with areal pics, btw); if B used X together with CC-BY-SA (or GPL) licensed product Y, A would find their product released under another license 1. against their will, 2. through no fault of their own. OK, I am officially more confused about this now than I was before asking. Thanks for all your input though. I should probably have asked the legal question separately in legal-talk. I am not a lawyer myself but I tend to agree with Elena / Simon on the matter of Bing violating the terms of the license / our copyright (whichever of the two). Whatever they did, I would say it's fair they take something back from OSM, they should just have said so. For the huge boost they gave to OSM, we should cut them some slack though. And what were 'we' going to do about it anyway? (That's a rhetoric question here, but we can follow up on legal-talk) I am still interested in instances of systematic (ab)use of Bing image tiles in OSM apps, and what your opinion is on use /abuse in the Imagery Analyzer[1]. This could impact our relation with Bing (which, according to the press, is just peachy). [1] http://mvexel.dev.openstreetmap.org/bing/ -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
Hi, On 03/29/2012 04:53 PM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: First of all, there's not enough proof of copyright violation. There's no proof that assumed deravative work is generated using our work That was my position initially as well but it has meanwhile been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and publicly admitted by a senior Bing guy on IRC. Details are, mostly in German, on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/2012_Germany_Military_Blurring. People have painstakingly compared the blurring boundaries and OSM data and found an overwhelming number of exact matches, and since these areas were not imported but hand-traced/mapped by many different mappers, it is near impossible that any other data source should have these polygons like that. I can't comment on the *scale* of the copyright violation. I am however slightly unhappy about two *style* issues: 1. Six weeks ago, Bing said they'd rework the blurring to not use our data, but this seems not to have happened yet. If they knew it takes so long, they could at least have added our attribution in the mean time. 2. We never got an apology - neither for the fact that they used and are still using our data without attribution, nor for the fact that they initially denied having used our data and it took them ten days to confess. Had they, like others in similar situations, said we'd like to apologize for the cock-up and we promise to fix it, then nobody would have said anything. But all we got from them is We understand this is objectionable to some members of the OSM community but based on our very good relationship we hope and thank you for your understanding and patience. - read it slowly: We understand this is objectionable to some sounds like we see no reason to apologize just because a few pedants make a fuss. Frankly, I would have expected more from someone who believes that they have a very good relationship with the OSM community. And even if there is violation, one thing for sure - as several people in this tread already said, this doesn't make Bing photos automatically CC-BY-SA, no matter how someone would like this. Probably right. Also in this case not all photos are impacted, only those with blured bits. The photos from which the tiles are cut are quite large ;) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 05:53:12PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I have studied copyright law and cases and have actual friend as copyright lawyer (rarity even these days). There are many ways how this is not even close to any substantial copyright violation, and very few how it could be. First of all, there's not enough proof of copyright violation. There's no proof that assumed deravative work is generated using our work (So far I haven't seen lot of it, only unofficial admittance). And if there's one, it's not very substantial to variant court case of copyright violation. There is plenty of proof. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing/2012_Germany_Military_Blurring And even if there is violation, one thing for sure - as several people in this tread already said, this doesn't make Bing photos automatically CC-BY-SA, no matter how someone would like this. As no written Thats where we disagree. But I am not a lawyer either and I don't have a friend who is, so I guess your argument is better. commercial app including GPL code is automatically GPL. Coders just violate copyright and they are given chance to remove it, or relicense code as copyleft license requires. Also in this case not all photos are impacted, only those with blured bits. By this argument if I have a program with some of my code and some GPL code I don't have to make my parts GPL because those are different parts of the program? I'd say the photos are all impacted, because it is just one big work. The tiling is just a technical detail to make the download quicker. But, hey, the Bing guys are our friends, so there is no problem here, really. And I don't want to get my fingers slapped by the list moderator for talking legal things on the non-legal list, so I better stop talking. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Applications systematically consuming Bing Aerial tiles
Hi, Does anyone know of applications in the OSM ecosystem that systematically download large areas' worth of Bing Aerial tiles? The license[0] implies that this is not allowed because 1) you cannot 'copy, store, archive, or create a database of the content' (par.2) and 2) you must be 'using only methods and means of access that are documented in the SDKs described at the end of this agreement'. Both these limitations are not 100% clear because 1) does not preclude the act of downloading itself, only storing and 2) refers to the Bing SDK documentation [1] which describes the Bing AJAX and Silverlight controls, and some other less relevant ones. This would preclude direct tile access as this is not described in those docs (as far as I can see). I presume that is what P(2) and JOSM do though? Anyway, I know of one app that circumvents the Bing SDK and pulls metadata through direct tile access and HEAD requests and that's my very own Bing Imagery Analyzer[2] - but that's hardly systematic consumption. I do need to provide an API key for the Bing AJAX SDK that I use for the app, but I get away with firing the HEAD requests on the individual files.. So what is 'allowed usage' for OSM, and are there apps that operate in the grey area like my analyzer, by circumventing the SDK? Best Martijn [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Bing_license.pdf [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd877180.aspx [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing_imagery_analyzer_for_OSM -- martijn van exel geospatial omnivore 1109 1st ave #2 salt lake city, ut 84103 801-550-5815 http://oegeo.wordpress.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
