[OSM-legal-talk] Chart in OSM wiki to help with common licensing of image uploads
Chris (Chris2map)
chris at chraphi.de
Mon Feb 21 20:52:50 UTC 2022
Hey, I didn't manage to reply yesterday Sunday.
First, thank you Simon for the quick response!
- ... point out that as a rule content on the wiki needs to licenced on
open terms ...
I think this is what has to be clearly stated on file upload page.
- JOSM
That is why I described the license of JOSM a bit more general with the
Template:JOSM screenshot with imagery, see e.g.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:JOSM_1.png
I think it is not harmful to mention the license of the application
(GPL), at least till we know further more.
- aerial imagery
IMHO this is less a case to the chart, but a fundamental question to the
wiki. If it was that strict, all the aerial images would have to be deleted.
As Mateusz already has told, we try to work on the (un)pretty amount of
images without any source or license. When we appeal to or ask an
uploader for adding that information, there comes the question what and
how to do.
With the chart I hope to create one possibility to give a first answer,
at least which existing markings (templates) can be used.
So at least we would have categorized files regarding the copyright or
license.
We wont solve, at the same time, all fundamental questions related to
copyright, license and use in the wiki, that are still open.
But hopefully we get one step forward in treating or maintain those
image files.
Anyway good that we discuss it.
Chris
Am 21.02.2022 um 07:29 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk:
> note: out of order quotes
>
> Feb 19, 2022, 20:27 by simon at poole.ch
> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>:
>
> - pictograms: I consider it rather problematic to try and determine
> threshold of originality yourself (the text from WMF noted), I would
> consider it to be wise to take a conservative approach here.
>
> I agree, I added a note with warning and asking to limit to obvious cases.
>
> - in the case of of aerial imagery licensed on non-open terms (Bing,
> Esri, Maxar, Mapbox and so on), we really only have permission to
> use it for editing purposes. I would argue that that should cover
> use for editing documentation purposes, but it needs to be clear
> that there are limits to how we can reuse such content,
>
> I was worried about touching this, as no matter how I read
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing_Maps#Terms.2C_Clarifications
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bing_Maps#Terms.2C_Clarifications>
> I do not see how it can be constructed to allow use on OSM Wiki
> "imited solely to aerial imagery use in a non-commercial online editor
> application of OpenStreetMap"
>
> And if it can be argued to be allowed as fair use - is it OK to upload
> also Google Maps
> aerial/maps/street view etc?
>
> - the section on screenshots would seem to be postulating rights by
> the app authors in the images that don't actually exist (a
> screenshot of JOSM is not licensed on GPL terms IMHO),
>
> Then how JOSM screenshot is licensed?
>
> The good part of that is that fixing this requires just changing one or two
> template pages and I expect that we would not need to delete files over
> this,
> so there is no need to review them.
>
> Wikimedia Commons usually has an useful docs but
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Screenshots
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Screenshots>
> is not actually explaining anything on that.
>
> This would seem to be quite an ambitious undertaking.
>
> For now just a couple of remarks
>
> Thanks for them!
>
> - the document should point out that as a rule content on the wiki
> needs to licenced on open terms and only in exceptional
> circumstances is it acceptable to upload non-open content,
>
> I agree, but...
>
> Actually right now we have no rule like that on OSM Wiki!
> Even "no copyright violations" is mostly not enforced.
>
> Part of the problems is caused by
>
> - people uploading images to wiki without stating source
> - people uploading sometimes random images from Internet
> - people assuming that all content on wiki is actually CC-BY-SA 2.0
> and using photos that were uploaded under that license
>
> There is backlog of about 20 000 files not specifying source or license,
> some of them are blatant copyright violations.
>
> See
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki#Designing_policy_for_handling_files_without_clear_license
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki#Designing_policy_for_handling_files_without_clear_license>
> (comments are highly welcomed there)
> and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mateusz_Konieczny/notify_uploaders
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mateusz_Konieczny/notify_uploaders>
> for an attempt to solve this.
>
> If someone is willing to help then for example
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki#Dubious_licensing_of_a_derivative_work
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki#Dubious_licensing_of_a_derivative_work>
> lists cases where uploaders were contacted and modified licenses to
> very dubious ones so need to be contacted again or images should be
> flagged for deletion.
>
> (I am going through responses of various people but it will take time -
> and once this will be mostly processed I will contact next
> group of people who uploaded images without stating license or source)
>
> (and this presented draft was created as part of exactly this cleanup
> process)
>
>
> Am 19.02.2022 um 20:27 schrieb Simon Poole:
>>
>> This would seem to be quite an ambitious undertaking.
>>
>> For now just a couple of remarks
>>
>> - the document should point out that as a rule content on the wiki needs
>> to licenced on open terms and only in exceptional circumstances is it
>> acceptable to upload non-open content,
>>
>> - the section on screenshots would seem to be postulating rights by the
>> app authors in the images that don't actually exist (a screenshot of
>> JOSM is not licensed on GPL terms IMHO),
>>
>> - in the case of of aerial imagery licensed on non-open terms (Bing,
>> Esri, Maxar, Mapbox and so on), we really only have permission to use it
>> for editing purposes. I would argue that that should cover use for
>> editing documentation purposes, but it needs to be clear that there are
>> limits to how we can reuse such content,
>>
>> - pictograms: I consider it rather problematic to try and determine
>> threshold of originality yourself (the text from WMF noted), I would
>> consider it to be wise to take a conservative approach here.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>> Am 19.02.2022 um 15:40 schrieb Chris (Chris2map):
>>>
>>> Hey there,
>>>
>>> I want to communicate the creation of a chart in OSM wiki with
>>> the intention to give wiki users an overview and easy guideline
>>> what to do when uploading image files regarding an applicable
>>> license.
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Drafts/Media_file_license_chart
>>>
>>> Sparked by the efforts of Mateusz Konieczny to make advance with
>>> the many files without any information provided, I created a
>>> draft with the most common image types and the possible /
>>> desirable licenses, as far as I know it, also with contributions
>>> by Mateusz.
>>>
>>> As of now I think it is reasonably applicable and useful. So you
>>> might want to have a look at it.
>>> I do appreciate each check of it.
>>>
>>> IMHO it shouldn't become bigger and more complex than it is already.
>>>
>>> I plan to move the chart from draft to main namespace and link
>>> it on the relevant help pages at about March 1st.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Chris
>>> (Chris2map)
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list