[OSM-legal-talk] Help in reviewing OSM Wiki file copyright documentation
Mateusz Konieczny
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Sat Jan 29 06:48:01 UTC 2022
Jan 28, 2022, 23:26 by osm at stephans-server.de:
> Hello Mateusz,
>
> On 28.01.2022 09:13, Mateusz Konieczny via legal-talk wrote:
>
>> OSM Wiki has over 20 000 files without stated license, many of them are copyright
>> violations or files on licenses requiring attribution but missing it.
>>
>
> How did you come to this conclusion and the number of media files?
>
> Wiki lists less then 2.000 files.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Media_without_a_license
>
See say
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UncategorizedFiles&limit=2000&offset=18000
(note: offset in the link may be needed to change in future as number of such files
drops down)
Your link goes to files that are explicitly marked as missing license
with https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Unknown .
This link lists also ones without any category at all.
In addition there are files with some category and without any license being stated
such as
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:New_Microsoft_Edge_Icon.svg
(I just removed from it claim that Edge logo is a file where anyone can
"use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed"
)
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Google_Chrome_icon.png
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Google_Translate_Logo.png
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Politecnico_Milano_logo.jpg
(sorry for just icons, but known problematic files deserving deletion
get marked with deletion template while copyrighted icons are another
case which needs some handling, almost certainly distinct from deleting
used ones)
For list of deletions and requested deletions see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Labelled_for_deletion
though most cases is housekeeping, not copyright violations
> I think, that based on the history of the wiki and it's CC-BY-SA that most of the uploaded content was actually intended to be exactly that.
>
The problem is that there is substantial amount of files where someone uploaded
random file from Internet, Google Street View imagery, Bing imagery, other unfree
imagery etc etc and not even mentioned it in description or edit comment.
> Was it really clear from the beginning that all uploaded media need a dedicated copyright statement? Potentially they are left-overs from that time.
>
> Just picking a file of this list which looks obviously genuine and intentional, the following is an example:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Alen_self_photo_192x192.jpg
>
> File is only used on a user page and uploaded by the same user stating it is a self photo.
>
> If it is important to have an additional note on each upload, we have to make sure that this is enforced on new media upload. But why not assume that old one was correctly uploaded as CC-BY-SA?
>
> "Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license unless otherwise noted.". It is not noted otherwise, so it is CC.
>
Yeah, that is problem and just deleting all images by inactive authors would be likely
not justified.
As mentioned in the linked discussion there are plans to probably mark ones which
were clearly or extremely likely made by uploaders and not replaceable as
"assumed CC SA 2.0" or similar.
Not entirely sure is it a good idea, definitely should not be applied to recently
uploaded images and cases where user is still active and selectively not responding.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20220129/c4ef8c30/attachment.htm>
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list