[OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL "Produced Work" maps in Wikipedia

[Adrian Frith]

Hi again,

On 21 July 2012 20:10, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> On 21.07.2012 18:19, Adrian Frith wrote:
>>
>> Do we really have to include the full notice "Contains information from
>> OpenStreetMap, which is made available here under the Open Database
>> License (ODbL)" in the caption of every use of an OSM-derived map in a
>> Wikipedia article?
>
>
> I don't know if the legal requirement is for having the attribution directly
> visible but even if it is, it would be ok to have it in the bitmap rather
> than in the caption.

Would it be a reasonable approach to mention "OpenStreetMap" (linked
to the Wikipedia article on OSM) in the caption and then include the
full ODbL notice on the file page, do you think?

>> 3. Subsequent reuse. In the above case, if necessary I can still at
>> least keep a copy of the shapefile and hand it out on request. But,
>> having uploaded the map to Wikimedia Commons, does section 4.6 apply
>> to others who reuse the map?
>
>
> No. The Produced Work you create is uploaded to Wikipedia under CC-BY-SA and
> that's all that counts. CC-BY-SA would not allow additional conditions (e.g.
> the making available of a source database) anyway. The "Created from
> OdBL-licensed OSM data available here" that you have to add to your Produced
> Work becomes, in the terms of CC-BY-SA, a "copyright notice" that the
> CC-BY-SA user is required to "keep intact" but that's all they have to do.

Does this mean that, in my scenario, the only recipient to whom I have
an obligation under ODbL sec. 4.6 is the Wikimedia Foundation?
Everyone else who receives it receives it from WMF under CC-BY-SA and
they have no claim on me?

Thanks,
Adrian