[OSM-legal-talk] Potential huge License violation - anyone know anything about this?

Phil Monger philm94 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 2 21:03:53 BST 2010


So I was looking through some cycle books, as you do, when I came across
this one (i've hosted the images 3rd party and avoided HTML, if
they don't work let me know. I had to snap them on the iPhone - so sorry for
the lack of a close focus!!) :

http://img249.imageshack.us/i/img0002tw.jpg/

It's a new cycle book for London, with routes, etc. Pretty standard fare.
The problem? All the maps inside are blatant OSM copies (Mapnik, I assume)
with route overlays posted. Now this wouldn't be a problem, obviously,
except they are way WAY outside of CC-BY-SA.

Firstly, they claim copyright over the whole book and 'every part therein.'
To add insult to creative-commons injury they claim copyright over the
mapping:

http://img193.imageshack.us/i/img0003oz.jpg/

It's a little hard to make out (sorry again) but reads "Copyright 2010 in
maps, New Holland Publishers Ltd..." then later states "all rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced.."

You can read this page on the Amazon product page -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/London-Cycling-Guide-Exploring-Capital/dp/1847735460 -
unfortunately none of the OSM maps pop up on that preview, at least not for
me. For reference, there are maps for *each of the 30 routes* inside. All
OSM except for some overview mapping which looks donated from the council.
This is the best shot I could get of the OSM mapping being used :

http://img707.imageshack.us/i/img0005na.jpg/

None of the maps have *any* accreditation back to OSM on them. The only
place OSM is mentioned it on the very last page, very last line, where it
says "All other maps by Steve Dew using base maps by OpenStreetMap" :

http://img412.imageshack.us/i/img0004qh.jpg/

No mention of CC, no logo, no link, ect.

Ironically, it doesn't list OSM or OCM as "useful resources" for cyclists
... I wonder why?

So, in summary:

- No attribution
- Is a derived work released under Copyright

I assume this hasn't been cleared and 'waived' by someone at OSM? Where can
we go from here?

I have an urge to go start flogging scanned copies and claim .. "but surely
as a derivative work this is also a work released under CC-BY-SA?" if that's
what it takes to stop corporations like New Holland from pilfering work like
this.

;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100602/615e6892/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list