[OSM-legal-talk] ccbysa Prominence clause

David Groom reviews at pacific-rim.net
Tue Apr 6 15:47:48 BST 2010

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Weait" <richard at weait.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 3:31 PM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] ccbysa Prominence clause

> Recent OSM-derived sites have included beautiful vanity logos on the
> map.  As an example, the recent isochronous map of Paris:
> http://www.isokron.com/default/
> Has a beautiful, bright "isokron" logo and link to their site.  But I
> wonder if this meets with the Prominence clause of our ccbysa license?
> The full text of the cc-by-sa (v2.0) license includes this clause
> regarding "prominence"
> "
> Such credit may be implemented in any reasonable manner; provided,
> however, that in the case of a Derivative Work or Collective Work, at
> a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable
> authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as
> such other comparable authorship credit.
> "
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode
> In our example above I'm comparing the isokron logo-link with the
> OSM/ccbysa link at the bottom of the page:
> large colour "isokron" logo
> - approx. 300x76 pixels
> - bright colours
> - link to www.isokron.com
> and OSM / ccbysa credit
> - approx. 175 x 10 pixels
> - grey on white
> - links to ccbysa text and openstreetmap.org
> The OSM / ccbysa link text appears to be fully compliant with our
> guidance on the wiki[1].  It has links to both OpenStreetMap and the
> CC license text.  But the prominence?  Not quite as good.
> The isokron logo is ~13 times larger than the OSM/ccbysa link.
> The isokron logo is colourful and the OSM/ccbysa link is monochrome.
> The isokron logo is on the map and the OSM/ccbysa link is below the map.
> My questions to legal-talk are:
> 1) Is this a situation where the prominence clause should be applied?
> And if not, when should the prominence clause apply?
> 2) What guidance should we offer to good members of the OSM community
> who wish to have a large beautiful logo on their map?
> Best regards,
> Richard

Personally I dont see a problem with what they have done.

You are comparing their logo with the copyright statement, but the text of 
the CC licence which you quote above states ".....least as prominent as
 such other comparable authorship credit.".  I don't see their logo as 
being an "other comparable authorship credit".


More information about the legal-talk mailing list