[OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-SA / Non-separatable combination of OSM+other

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Wed Feb 2 17:34:38 GMT 2011


On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> On 02/02/11 18:00, Peter Miller wrote:
>> And this one showing the location of the 'Trafford Law Centre' unless
>> the photo was also on a free license or moved so as not to obscure the
>> map.
>> http://www.traffordlawcentre.org.uk/contact_us/contact.htm
>
> This is a funny example because you could conceivably cut out a corner from
> the map, then place the image where it is now... it is just about
> conceivable to make a copy of this map without copying the image so maybe
> this could work as a collection.

I think so.  The main point that I would argue is that the
modification of cutting out a corner is independent from the image.

I suppose you could argue the same if you cut out holes from an OSM
map, without knowing what you were going to put there, and then laid
in copyrightable non-CC-BY-SA elements into the holes.  Maybe
technically legal, but definitely a subversion of the spirit of the
license.

>
>> How about this map of the Isle of White overlaid with illustrations?
>> http://www.steve.shalfleet.net/
>
> Certainly the whole map needs to by CC-BY-SA.
>
> We did have some pages with examples about this on our wiki, years ago. I
> remember the example was a tourist guide with maps and photos, and there
> were several cases where maps and photos (and text) were sometimes
> superimposed, sometimes side-by-side, and the whole thing was commented as
> to what is derived and what is collected. I cannot find it now, however.
>
> I think that in those examples, there was the concept of interaction and
> co-dependency - the question of "does the overlaid stuff work without the
> map". So if you carefully place your photo or illustration at a certain
> point in the map, and your photo or illustration would lose its meaning
> without the map, then it is clearly a derived work; but if your photo just
> sits there and could just as well sit there without the map, then it could
> be called a collection. This is not an interpretation I necessarily share
> and I'm not sure about the exact wording but it has something going for it.
>
>> Indeed anything overlaid on the map, or any other ccbysa image or
>> photograph would need to be on an open license if the strict
>> interpretation was used.
>
> I don't think this interpretation is particularly strict. There have indeed
> been several people requesting that my OSM book be fully CC-BY-SA'ed because
> it contains OSM illustrations on some pages - *That* I call a strict reading
> (and one I clearly don't share).
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>



More information about the legal-talk mailing list