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

[Grant Slater]

On 19 December 2010 16:53, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
>> 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."
>

And the "Bing Maps Imagery Editor license" link points to the
OpenGeoData blog post which has the license + downloadable PDF.
http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details

> 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.
>

Download the license from the OpenGeoData post, it is called ""Bing
Maps Imagery Editor API License FINAL.pdf"

>>
>> 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)
>

Open JOSM or Potlatch2, the Terms-Of-Use link that is specified is:
http://opengeodata.org/microsoft-imagery-details
And sure, this should be more explict.

>>
>> 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.
>

Better detailed here:
http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100
And now add to that we have explit permission to use the imagery....

> 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.
>

See above.

/ Grant