[OSM-legal-talk] Someone already had a look at the Bing Termsof Use?

[David Groom]

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Grant Slater" <openstreetmap at firefishy.com>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
> <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> 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 <reviews at pacific-rim.net> 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 have directly stated that 
>> Bing
>> imagery may be used to update OSM".
>>
>> Indeed, had Microsoft have directly stated that Bing imagery may be used
>> to
>> update OSM, then I suspect you would have pointed to a paragraph which
>> backed up that assertion.
>>
>> As I've written before[2] the only direct mention Microsoft have made of
>> derived data made from tracing Bing Imagery is their statement that it
>> isn't
>> allowed [3].
>>
>
> 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

Yes Grant, I have read both of those, in particular the statement on both 
which says "To learn more and see the full terms of use, please see the Bing 
Maps Imagery Editor license."

Therefore to comment on the terms of use I decided to refer to the licence, 
and not the blog posts you refer to, since the blogs tell me to refer to the 
licence.

>
> What you link to in [3] is Bing's standard terms for everyone else...
> Not what applies for OSM.

Could you please refer me to the source for why these terms do not apply to 
OSM?  Particularly in view of the fact that, as I referred to earlier, in 
the Bing Maps Imagery Editor license it says the terms do apply (see section 
6)

>
> We have permission to derive NEW works from their imagery on condition
> that the new works go into OSM.

Good, please show me where this is clearly stated.  Then we can end the 
discussion.

In fact, as I have also pointed out before, it is unclear that Bing Maps 
Imagery Editor license actually apply to end users anyway, in which case the 
only bit applicable to end users is [3]  which says deriving works is not 
allowed.

David

>
> Also for fun... openstreetmapS.org _IS_ an OpenStreetMap domain and
> belongs to the OSM. I spent ages getting it back from domain squatters
> because it is such a common typo.
>
> / Grant
>
>> However, as I stated at the state of this message I suspect that 
>> Microsoft
>> intend that Bing imagery may be used to update OSM, I also suspect that
>> they
>> intended the wording of the licence [1] to make it clear. On that
>> (admittedly probably unsound from a legal point of view), basis I have
>> been
>> tracing from Bing.
>>
>> David

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/d8/Bing_license.pdf
[2]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-December/005305.html
[3] http://www.microsoft.com/maps/assets/docs/terms.aspx