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 fo
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> 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.
Hi,
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?
Strange wording - we're not looking for data that can be "licensed under
a CT compatible lice
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.
Th
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Rob Myers 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?
>>
>
> Microsof
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"
To:
Sent: S
On 19 December 2010 14:40, David Groom 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 ha
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> On 19 December 2010 14:40, David Groom 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 openst
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 righ
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 wo
- Original Message -
From: "Grant Slater"
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
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 wrote:
The licence PDF states:
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Myers"
To:
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 Bin
On 19 December 2010 16:53, David Groom 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
>
> Ye
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> 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
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Simon Poole 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?
___
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
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Simon Poole 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" (whi
"Anthony" 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
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> "Anthony" 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 wou
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 t
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Rob Myers 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" ra
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
> 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.
By the way, do you think it is likely that OSM-style "
- Original Message -
From: "Grant Slater"
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2010 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing
TermsofUse?
On 19 December 2010 16:53, David Groom wrote:
Have you read? Microsoft me
>> And now add to that we have explit permission to use the imagery
>
> I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing Imagery
> to create derived works
The explicit permission is to use the imagery to update OSM: "any
updates you make to the OpenStreetMap map via the Appl
David (& some others),
David Groom wrote:
I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing
Imagery to create derived works, all the only answer is "we have it".
As I've said before if its there please show us where it is.
Just out of interest; why are we having this convers
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> And now add to that we have explit permission to use the imagery
>>
>> I've repeatedly asked where is the explicit permission to use Bing Imagery
>> to create derived works
>
> The explicit permission is to use the imagery to update OSM: "an
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.
> >
> >
27 matches
Mail list logo
