[OSM-legal-talk] Are CT contributors are in breach of the CC-BY-SA license?

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Sun Apr 17 12:07:19 BST 2011


On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess your argument hinges on whether uploading data to the OSM
> servers is a form of "publishing" in terms of copyright.

Indeed, it's the act of distribution.  The  question is, if the user
uploads a derivative work to OSM is that than an act of distribution?

If they were to distribute a copy of the derived work to some other
third party such as Google, and grant Google rights that go beyond
CC-BY-SA then it's clear that they have breached CC-BY-SA.

There is no special condition or exception for OSM and so the same rule applies.


>
> If you create a work and never publish it (in other words, nobody else
> will see it), then it is not yet copyrighted. Even works for hire are
> not copyrighted until the hiring entity publishes it.
>
> Again, IANAL, but submitting data to the OSM server where it is
> *immediately* published via the OSM API and *immediately* made
> available to the public licensed as CC-BY-SA, doesn't put the
> contributor in breach of the CC license. Since the publishing doesn't
> occur until the data is made available via the OSM API (and the OSM
> Planet), then I believe there is no problem.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 6:23 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 11:01 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> IANAL, but as long as the data is currently being released as
>>> CC-BY-SA, then there is no breach of the CC license.
>>
>> Clause 4 of CC-BY-SA 2.0 only permits you to distribute copies of a
>> deriviative work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license.
>>
>> Uploading the derived work to OSM is a form of distribution.  This can
>> only be done under CC-BY-SAQ.
>>
>> You do not have the right to distribute the content to OSM on the
>> terms required by the CTs.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> CC-BY-SA only stipulates that the data, when published, must be under
>>> CC-BY-SA. It doesn't say that you cannot enter contracts promising to
>>> release the data *in the future* under another license.
>>
>> You can indeed enter into a contract with OSMF but you cannot
>> distribute CC-BY-SA content to them under the terms of that agreement.
>>  Arguably, users who have previously agreed that all their
>> contributions to OSM are CC-BY-SA might still be covered by that as
>> the CTs do not explicitly override that pre-existing agreement.
>>
>> The CTs require you to grant rights to OSMF that, for CC-BY-SA
>> licensed content, you do not have.  What OSMF subsequently proposes to
>> do is irrelevant.
>>
>>>
>>> If the data will be released *in the future* under a different
>>> license, then it's true that the CC license is breached.
>>
>> Agreed, this issue is with users attempting to grant rights to OSMF
>> now, not in the future, that they do not have.  Contributors, not
>> OSMF, are in breach of CC-BY-SA if they distribute CC-BY-SA derived
>> contributions to OSM having agreed to the CTs.
>>
>> They are attempting to distribute content to OSM under an agreement
>> that is not CC-BY-SA and they just plain cannot do that.
>>
>>>
>>> But, in the case of OSM-ODbL, assuming that all the ODbL rejectors' IP
>>> will be removed before the actual relicensing, since what remains is
>>> the IP of all who have agreed to the CT, then it's like everyone
>>> mutually agreed to relicense their own data under a new license, thus,
>>> not breaching the CC license.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It would seem to me that anyone who has agreed to the contributor
>>>> terms and who then edits content that is published by OSM is in breach
>>>> of the CC-BY-SA license.
>>>>
>>>> Currently the OSM database is published as a CC-BY-SA work.  If that
>>>> content is downloaded from the OSM database and modified then this
>>>> creates a derived work.
>>>>
>>>> If that derived work is loaded back to OSM then it can only be done so
>>>> under the same license by which it was received, namely CC-BY-SA.
>>>> That's the nature of the share alike clause in CC-BY-SA.  But anyone
>>>> who has agreed to the contributor terms is claiming that they can
>>>> contribute this content under a different license.
>>>>
>>>> Now I know that it is the intention of OSMF to delete any such
>>>> content, but in fact anyone who has edit such CC-BY-SA derived works
>>>> is already in actual breach of the license under which they *received*
>>>> that content.
>>>>
>>>> If you have agreed to the contributor terms you are likely to be
>>>> breaching the terms of CC-BY-SA.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> legal-talk mailing list
>>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com
>



More information about the legal-talk mailing list