[Osmf-talk] Future of DWG work, copyright, vandalism

[Andy Robinson]

Frederik,
There is a lot in here, all of it very carefully considered. Thanks.

I'm all for having a default policy in each case. I would prefer this to be
strict with regard to copyright infringement (possible or actual) and soft
with respect to vandalism. 
I believe it is defining the procedures that allow appeal or possible revert
of an initial decision that as a community we need to thrash out. In an
ideal world the DWG would set the default policy and that this is then
administered generally by the community. Appeals etc. might be manageable by
the community too but would always fall back to the DWG if no agreement can
be reached. 

Cheers
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frederik Ramm [mailto:frederik at remote.org]
> Sent: 07 June 2012 11:13
> To: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Osmf-talk] Future of DWG work, copyright, vandalism
> 
> Dear OSMF members,
> 
>     I would like to hear your opinion about two aspects of DWG work and
how
> we would like to handle that kind of work in the future.
> 
> DWG's daily work falls largely in three categories:
> 
> 1. Vandalism
> 
> Usually starts with someone complaining about someone else breaking
> things. Sometimes involves blocking the "vandal", often it is later found
out
> that it was a misunderstanding and not true vandalism, but we do
> occasionally have people who continue with a new account as soon as we
> block them.
> 
> 2. Copyright
> 
> Usually starts with someone complaining about someone else uploading data
> in violation of a third-party license (e.g. tracing from Google imagery);
often
> requires just a little email and reverting data.
> 
> 3. Dispute
> 
> Users complaining about each other's work - e.g. whether the name tag of
> something should by in cyrillic or not, whether something is a track or a
> footway, whatever. Sometimes results in edit wars or even one party
> starting to vandalize stuff.
> 
> Most of these issues can be solved with a little patience and talking to
people
> - for now. There are two issues where I am unsure how to handle them.
> 
> A. Suspected Copyright Violations
> 
> Only yesterday I received a long-ish message of one user who noted that
> someone else was mapping nature reserves, the boundaries of which did not
> seem to be available anywhere. So the user sent a message to the other guy
> asking for the source, and the other guy said something about copying data
> from a sign somewhere, and upon further inquiry got caught up in
> contradictions.
> 
> So the situation is: There's some data in OSM which is not *clearly* from
a
> non-allowed source; the original contributor refuses to specify the source
(or
> cites a source that we cannot verify); someone thinks that this might be a
> copyright violation.
> 
> We simply do not have the manpower to actually research cases like that.
> We need a simple policy that allows us, or ideally the community, to deal
with
> such cases.
> 
> Such a policy could for example be one of
> 
> * "Data for which no credible source is given in the changeset or on
request
> by the contributing mapper is subject to deletion. The mapper must
> demonstrate, on request, that his source is legal. If the mapper chooses
not
> to tell us his source then we must assume it is not legal."
> (In many cases the "credible source" could be "survey" but the boundary of
a
> protection area might not always be surveyable.)
> 
> * "We only assume a copyright violation when we actually see that the
> mapper has contributed something that looks identical to a known
unsuitable
> source, or where the rights owner contacts us; if someone suspects
> someone else of copyright infringement, we ask the suspect whether they
> can confirm that their sources are legal and if they say yes, then that's
> sufficiently diligent."
> 
> * "We only act if someone - rights owner or other mappers - presents us
with
> incontrovertible proof that data has come from an unsuitable source."
> 
> This is a balancing act which has to satisfy three goals: First, it must
not be too
> much work for us; second, it must prove to the outside world that OSM
takes
> copyright seriously and does not ignore problems; third, it must not place
too
> much burden on the mappers.
> 
> Essentially, what I'm after is some sort of general procedure (maybe even
> flowchart) of dealing with (suspected) copyright violations.
> 
> B. Continuing Vandalism
> 
> As I said initially, most vandals aren't really vandals, and most real
vandals go
> a way after you block them once or send them a message. If that doesn't
> help, I usually send them a second message explaining how the law in their
> respective criminalizes computer vandalism, and this (plus the implied "we
> know which country you're from") often helps. But not always; there are
> people who just go on. There was an user in Norway who created fantasy
> bus routes all the time; we blocked him and told him that what he was
doing
> was illegal in Norway, but he continued. He has now signed up using the
> account name "Adolf Hitler" and continues his funny little game in London
> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/11789344). It's not a
> big deal, he only does it once a month and it is reverted easily enough,
but if
> he were more resourceful and invested more time, he could create more
> harm. We don't currently have a problem with people like that but I
foresee
> that they will become more of a problem in the future, that's why I am
> thinking about it.
> 
> There are three things we can do:
> 
> * technical measures - try to profile the vandal and disallow signups or
edits
> that match the pattern.
> 
> * policy measures - stop giving full edit privileges to every new user;
instead,
> make it so that new users have some limits such as so-and-so many edits
per
> day, or only make edits within a certain range of your home location, or
you
> have to be "vouched for" by at least two other mappers before you can edit
> for real, whatever. One would have to find a policy that takes the fun out
of
> vandalism while not being a turn-off for real mappers.
> 
> * legal measures - pay lawyers to go to court and request the real address
of
> the IP number that vandalizes our data, then send nasty letters to people
> and demand money. (I imagine that most vandals must be kids who would
> be in for trouble with their parents once they start getting recorded
letters.)
> If the movie industry can do it, so can we, provided that vandalizing our
data
> is indeed illegal. This might require "hardening" the process first, i.e.
getting
> legal advice for updating our CT to include wording that makes it
clear(er)
> that edits not founded in reality are considered vandalism, and it might
also
> require lawyer-approved notices to be sent out by DWG (instead of my usual
> informal "hey, stop that, we don't like it").
> 
> I'm not very fond of either of the latter two - policy measures always
have a
> ring of "you have to prove to us that you are a good guy before we let you
> contribute", and legal measures are probably expensive (would you want
> your OSMF donations to be used to pay for legal advice at
> £200/hr?) and can appear draconian ("Great-Grandmother, 85, bankrupted
> by OpenStreetMap for letting child use computer...").
> 
> But I fear that the New Testament approach to vandalism ("If someone
> vandalizes Oslo, let him vandalize London as well...") won't do either.
> I would prefer that we make our minds up about all this *before* we have
to
> use it.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk