Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on
top of an image
As written on CC-BY-SA
*Attribution*.
If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the
Licensed Material:
1. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any
others designated to receive attribution, in any r_*easonable
manner requested by the Licensor*_ (including by pseudonym if
designated);
in 3 a 1 A 1 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
that no interaction is allowed???
it says:
4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced
Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you
Publicly Use a Produced Work, _You must include a notice associated with__
__the Produced Work_ reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
_views,_ accesses, interacts with, or is _otherwise exposed_ to the
Produced
Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it
is available under this License.
If you can explain me how "reasonably calculated" to anyone that views
or is exposed means that no attribution must be visibly on the Produced
work. Feel free, i would like to know.
Unless OSMF when we switched from CC to ODbL mislead the contributors
and it's contributor terms, which i highly doubt.
Let's do an exercise.
LiveStream, a company of Vimeo uses OSM data on their website via a
third party provider (Mapbox). I contacted LiveStream to comply with the
license, they reply they are not using OSM data. Strange since i see my
contributions on it, maybe they are not aware (being premium clients
doesn't allow you to remove the attribution, other than the service
provider, Mapbox). Asked them who sold them my data without complying
with the license that i agreed my content to be distributed under. For
over one month their legal department is still checking this.
Link with a map example (feel free to browse to your contribution area),
click on the "i" for the map to display
https://livestream.com/accounts/9869799/events/7517661 printscreen of
the maphttps://ibb.co/TH4LbFp
Now the questions:
1 - Are they fulfilling the license?
a) yes
B) no
2 - Who's responsible?
a) Mapbox
b) LiveStream/Vimeo
But following your "Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that
attribution must be on top of an image or that no interaction is
allowed", i have search all LiveStream website and there's no notice at
all of OSM data.
3 - Who's not aware?
a) Mapbox, an OSMF corporate member
b) LiveStream/Vimeo, client of Mapbox
c) contributors/OSMF
Às 18:56 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on
top of an image or that no interaction is allowed???
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira
<nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com <mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the
bellow quote was not true?
Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F
Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to
interact to acknowledge the notice.
Às 18:08 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
Guidelines by the licensor
On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with
users of our data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court
would make a final decision on the issue, however we hope
these guidelines are helpful to *avoid *disputes arising in
the first place and can be considered by the courts in
coming to their verdict.
from
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have
quoted here isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might*
happen and what motivates OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly,
OSMF can choose to change the language you have quoted as a part
of changing the guidelines!
Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the
contract, is taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the
only thing that matters. The words of the licence matter more,
and if there is a conflict between what the licensor thinks and
what the licence says, the words of the licence will control. In
that case, the licensor is simply "wrong" (and there are plenty
of cases where that was the end result).
You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out
reasonable guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are
unreasonable and not tied to the language of the licence, then no
one, either users of the data or judges, will listen to OSMF,
and, under the law, rightly so.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
