[OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Bing

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

What is worrying me is that the LWG (=OSMF=COMMUNITY)
requires any contributor (us) to sign up using a CT,
where  BING can get away with a simple blog page.

I *can* understand that, because it's not OSM that is addressed
in this blog, but the individuals (us) making contributions.

The permission to use BING imagery is given to us in a vague
blog entry on the page below.
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-
maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx

We had better print this page and keep it's URL firmly !


In order to safeguard the OSM community, I want to suggest
that the LWG pays as much attention to BING complying with our CT
as to the us (=community)
and demand a firm license addressing each OSM user, signed up
to OSM to ensure it's legal position for the time he is using BING !

As I see it now, this blog is of no legal value, and any user
might be sued for license violation. Not to speak about the
consequences once BING imagery based data needs to be removed.


The fact that Steve Coast actually pays his home with BINGS
salary, does not create much of an insurance to us.

Giant companies as Google and Microsoft are known to change
their opinions fast as soon as their interest changes and no-one
is there to protect us when things go wrong. 

GEODATA is a big business and I would not be surprised
if MS one day decides that OSM is theirs, due to more
then a substantial part is based on BING imagery, without
sufficient legal foundation. 
I trust MS to have the legal force to make sure it takes
less than a week to accomplish that.


Gert

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Grant Slater
<openstreetmap at firefishy.com> wrote:
> The official Bing blog:
>
http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/maps/archive/2010/12/01/bing-
maps-aerial-imagery-in-openstreetmap.aspx
> published by Brian Hendricks - Bing Maps Product Manager

Oh, yes. That's right. I don't think it's perfect, but better than
nothing. I think it could have been handled better at Microsoft's end
though, i.e. directly posting the Terms PDF.

>> But even if it is and can be proved to be authentic, unless Microsoft
>> also state that OSM has permission to license traced data it out to
>> others as CC-BY-SA, simply saying yes you can trace and upload to OSM
>> isn't enough in my opinion. As this would be a license specific to
>> OSM, and wouldn't allow others who use OSM data to use the bing data.
>>
>
> The traced data is a new work and therefore untainted by the Bing
> license. (NearMap doesn't see using aerial imagery this way.)
> The license is also a specific terms of use grant to OSM with the
> condition the derived data is uploaded to OSM.

I can see that the assumption of "tracing aerial photography to create
a vector representation of the data is creating an entirely new work"
is potentially problematic. I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that
you would want the copyright holder to state that they disclaim any
copyright on such traced data just to be sure. Just take a look at
this case as an example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster#Origin_and_c
opyright_issues

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk