[OSM-legal-talk] OpenStreetMap Share Alike Produced Work issue

[Edward Bainton]

> I will follow your advice and write or draw my proper understanding of
the traces but not the traces
Not sure I dare suggest I gave advice! Just a view. In any case, that would
certainly be safer (in my inexpert view).

But it seems to me that even if you didn't do that, the French legislation
is very broad: it looks hard to argue against a claim that your work is
either "scientifique" ou bien "pédagogique", sinon les deux. As expected,
wider licence than the UK legislation.

Presumably your academic institution could advise you more precisely on
your position in French law, but looks to me like you're in the clear.

One further thing to consider is whether there may be sui generis database
right in the material, in addition to copyright. As that arises from EU
legislation I would be surprised if the provisions are much different, but
it would be a good idea to check. Others here can probably comment better.

*Art. L. 122-5. - Lorsque l'oeuvre a été divulguée, l'auteur ne peut
interdire:*
*...*


*3o Sous réserve que soient indiqués clairement le nom de l'auteur et la
source:a) Les analyses et courtes citations justifiées par le caractère
critique,polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre
à laquelle elles sont incorporées;*

On Mon, 29 May 2023 at 10:42, Esin Ekizoglu <esinekizoglu at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Edward,
> Thank you for this guidance. My book will be printed in France. I have the
> impression that I can benefit from the French law on "analyzes and short
> quotations justified by the critical nature, polemical, educational,
> scientific or informative of the work in which they are incorporated".(
> https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000000357475/)
>
> I actually use the tracks (not the whole tracks but for a cut of a
> geography: my case studies) to understand the behavior of city users on
> transport networks in order to plan the networks of the future by a "bottom
> up" approach. I will follow your advice and write or draw my proper
> understanding of  the traces but not the traces (as downloaded and studied
> in QGIS) for the publication of the book.
> For scientific articles the rules seems more open I have seen many
> articles with the OSM datas (under non compatible ODbL licence even "CC BY
> 4.0" seems incompatible (
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/))
>
> Thank you for your help,
> Best Regard,
> Esin
>
> Le lun. 29 mai 2023 à 09:43, Edward Bainton <bainton.ete at gmail.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> I’m not an expert by any means so please weigh other views.
>>
>> Academic work may benefit from a statutory licence or exemption. If
>> that’s the case you probably don’t need to read the OSM licence:
>> statutory exemptions (usually) shout louder in law than a licence granted
>> by the copyright owner (but check the text of the legislation, obviously).
>>
>> If you will be publishing in the UK (my jurisdiction) you may be able to
>> use the exemption for criticism and review:
>> https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/30
>>
>> It would depend on exactly how you’re using the traces, and from your
>> description I’m not more than 50pc confident that your work would be
>> covered: it seems you weren’t researching the utility of the traces
>> themselves, but rather using the traces to draw  conclusions about other
>> things? If so, light rewrite may cure the problem: it’s relatively common
>> to see things rather unnaturally written as critique in order to make use
>> of these provisions.
>>
>> Your own national jurisdiction or a different  jurisdiction of
>> publication may grant you a statutory licence or exemption wider than the
>> UK law: UK copyright law is famously unfavourable to users and favourable
>> to producers.
>>
>> Hope this helps and I look forward to seeing others’ suggestions.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 29 May 2023 at 07:38, Esin Ekizoglu <esinekizoglu at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear OpenStreetMap Community,
>>>
>>> I am an urban researcher. I defended my PhD in 2022 in architecture and
>>> urban planning. I was interested in public GPS data traces coming from
>>> OpenStreetMap (https://www.openstreetmap.org/traces) . It was in one of
>>> the parts of my thesis. Now I have a possibility to publish it in the form
>>> of a book.
>>>
>>> I have a question about this work. Normally, from what I have read
>>> (Openstreetmap Licence), my productions belong to the status of "produced
>>> work". (because I analyze public GPS tracks by integrating other given data
>>> (like bike paths plans for future for example) not only from Openstreetmap
>>> but other open sources (with a work QGIS) The results are in the form of
>>> images (jpeg or png exported from QGIS) and relate to part of the
>>> publication. Is correctly referencing Openstreetmap and Contributors will
>>> be sufficient for the questions of the copyright?
>>> Another question: I saw that before ODbL there was CC BY-SA 2.0 until
>>> September 2012. Can't traces downloaded before this date be part of
>>> produced work?  On the site it is marked as if the whole database was under
>>> the ODbL license. Does it refer to public gps data before September 2012? I
>>> will have to delete these traces of my research work since I cannot
>>> communicate them with the same license?
>>>
>>> I hope I am not supposed to share my book with the OpenStreetMap licence
>>> (share alike). It  is impossible because the work is not entirely based on
>>> Openstreetmap...
>>> Thank you for your help...
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Esin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> legal-talk mailing list
>>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>>
>> --
>> Sent from my mobile device with apologies for brevity.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20230529/2c1a6218/attachment.htm>