Sorry to jump in only so briefly, but a small point struck me reading this discussion:
"I don't accept that an image is a beneficial replacement for the text. When I say beneficial, I mean beneficial to OpenStreetMap. " As a cartographic project, isn't the whole point of OSM visual? It seems a big contradictory to assert that a visual identifier for a mapping project is a poor idea. Otherwise, as I contributor I second Mikel about being proud to have my work represented as suggested by Alex. On 4/26/13, Mikel Maron <mikel_ma...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi > > I don't think there's much existing agreement on how we attribute, just > standard practice. I as a contributor never "asserted" how things should be > attributed. > > For instance, looking at the FAQ > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#3a._I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F > > >> Our requested attribution is "© OpenStreetMap contributors". > > > That says requested attribution. There's nothing required? > >> "Because OpenStreetMap is its contributors, you may omit the word >> "contributors" if space is limited." > > Indeed. > > I think we're overvaluing text in the standard practice. No one reads the > messy text at the bottom of maps, except for map developers. Something > recognizable visually, without reading, is going to do a lot more for > awareness of OpenStreetMap then some text that just gets ignored. > > For this contributor, I would be proud to have my work credited by "by OSM", > or "with OSM". Copyright is there legally, on the copyright page. We are > more than copyright, we are community. And the newly designed page is a > great improvement, great welcome, to not only explain the legalities, but > what OSM is about ... people who care about data. > > -Mikel > > * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron > > >>________________________________ >> From: Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> >>To: Kathleen Danielson <kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com> >>Cc: Talk <talk@openstreetmap.org> >>Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 5:34 PM >>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] RFC updated: OSM Attribution Mark (was: contributor >> mark) >> >> >> >>On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Kathleen Danielson >> <kathleen.daniel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>Richard, can you explain a little more of why you think that the idea is >>> bad for OSM? >> >>Removing "OpenStreetMap" from the attribution requirement is bad for >> OpenStreetMap. It is good for OpenStreetMap that people who benefit from >> the use of OpenStreetMap be informed that it is OpenStreetMap from which >> they are gaining a benefit. >> >> >>Removing "Contributors" from the attribution requirement is bad for >> OpenStreetMap. Data contributors are the very core of the project. They >> create and improve the data from which we all benefit. The "contributors" >> portion of the attribution requirement was part of the discussion in the >> license change process. Contributors asserted that a simple "copyright >> OpenStreetMap" was not enough. The OpenStreetMap data contributors >> deserve recognition on produced works. >> >>The trade off that I am seeing here is reducing the >> readable/indexable/searchable text >> >>"Reducing" ? The image does not reduce the text the image eliminates > the text. Specifically, the image eliminates every text character > entity. The image eliminates "© OpenStreetMap Contributors" or 25 letters > and copyright symbol. >> >> >>If you stretch, really really far, and try to accept that an image of a >> letter is as good as a letter, then the image eliminates "© pen treet ap >> Contributors". In that tortured version of reality, the image eliminates >> 22 letters of 25 and the only explicit copyright symbol. In exchange, the >> letters "by" are added, which suggest, at best, something less than >> copyright. >> >> >>in exchange for the beginnings of a visual identifier, >> >> >>By visual identifier, you mean image, right? :-) >> >> >>I don't accept that an image is a beneficial replacement for the text. >> When I say beneficial, I mean beneficial to OpenStreetMap. >> >> >>and a direct link to a strategic copyright page. >>> >>There is already a copyright page. The link to the copyright page is >> already a requirement. >> >>In summary, the idea of a visual mark or image to replace the required >> attribution statement is harmful to OpenStreetMap. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>talk mailing list >>talk@openstreetmap.org >>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >> >> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk