[OSM-legal-talk] Images ineligible to copyright as a simple shapes (OSM Wiki)

[Pierre Béland]

Hi Mateusz,
Below is an image you modified the copyrigth recently saying this is not original enough to have a copyright, with a rectangle with to bands of colors.see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Balise-blanc-rouge-sentier-de-l-estrie.png
I agree with you that nothing original. But such image is used with various colors represent the Classification of trails and correspond to symbols you will see while hiking on the trail.  Quite usefull if even not quite original. 

Are you saying that even such image could create problems and should be deleted ? 

In this case, I did identified it as related to an hiking club. Are you also thinking that such image description should be revised with a more generic description ?

 
Pierre 
 

    Le lundi 8 mars 2021 18 h 00 min 39 s UTC−5, Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org> a écrit :  
 
 I see following possibilities:

- works are explicitly licensed, I just need proof of that (failed so far)
- works are intended for sharing, uploaded by author and OK for keeping also without
explicit licensing.
   - but is it OK to reuse such works? Is keeping it on Wiki setting a trap for potential reusers?
     I know that on for example https://commons.wikimedia.org/ something like that would be
    deleted but maybe we should be less strict?
     Is it OK for me to take it and use it in CC-BY-SA 4.0 licensed map style that would be 
     publicaly displayed?
- works are not original enough to qualify for copyright (rejected)


Mar 8, 2021, 20:54 by kathleen.lu at mapbox.com:

Based on the user page and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Icons/Map_Icons_Standards, it sounds like the user themself created the icons. If that's the case, there is no additional license required, at least for the uses the user originally uploaded the icons for, so I see no reason for you to request deletion. 

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:26 AM Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

Mar 8, 2021, 19:43 by kathleen.lu at mapbox.com:

At least in the US, the threshold is quite low, and I would say all of your examples meet the threshold.
(For road signs, but not icons, there's also separately the issue of fair use.)

:(

Now I am worried about some other things from
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:PD-licensed_as_below_threshold_of_originality

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Multipolygon_Illustration_3_de_plus_benachbarte_fl%C3%A4che.svg

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Mapbox-680.png

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Amenity_stripclub-icon.png

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Amenity_stripclub.svg

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Brasil_history_points.svg

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Icon-Edit-map.png


I do note that all of your examples came from the same user. Have you tried contacting that user? 

Yes. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Sergionaranja

Replied to request in 2014, but I am not sure how can I interpret this and it applies 
to only subset at best.

Q: Would it be OK for you to let us distribute your icons alongside JOSM code (GPL2+) ?

A: it is ok with me

There was no reply to request in 2016, so I am not expecting reply to my request,
sadly it may be necessary to delete them :(

I will try to reach out again or in some other way as this icons are pretty nice and 
may be useful (unlike some less useful images where I just request deletion by wiki admins).

Scroll down on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Labelled_for_deletion page
to see where deletion is currently requested.


On Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 1:31 AM Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

I am trying to process https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Media_without_a_license

My problem right now is deciding which images fit 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:PD-shape
"simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough"

For example I am unsure about:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2020_st_powergensource_wind.svg
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2020_st_placeofworship_shinto.svg
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2020_st_amenity_pub.svg
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2020_st_amenity_restaurant.svg
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2020_st_placeofworship_sikh.svg
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:2020_st_placeofworship_pastafarian.svg

I would appreciate any help in any of below:

- deciding whatever describing this images as simple geometric shapes
ineligible for copyright as not original enough is correct

- looking at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:PD-licensed_as_below_threshold_of_originality
whether images there are actually so simple to be below threshold of originality

- help in spotting wrong or misleading content on any of linked pages
(I am not a lawyer)

- help in processing https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Media_without_a_license
(marking images for deletion where appropriate, replacing images with unclear copyright
with one where it is clear, asking uploaders to clarify licensing status etc)
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



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



 _______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20210308/8c4be411/attachment-0001.htm>