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
