[Osmf-talk] OSM and open data global aerial/sat images

[Simon Poole]

The basic problem is that both CC BY and CC BY-SA are very restrictive
licences, particularly the 4.0 variants. As a result if tracing from so
licensed sources was found to create a derivative (in CC parlance an
"adapted work"), the results could be unusable for OSM purposes.

Skipping the longish discussion of the large differences in copyright
protection for images between different jurisdictions (for example
between where I'm sitting now and 40 km north of here), that is the
reason why the LWG suggests getting an explicit release for imagery (see
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqLXg1TUlxalAtVE0/view).

In my experience our use case used to be considered slightly odd and it
was relatively easy to obtain permission, these days (with the dawn of
ML) I'm not quite that optimistic any more.

Simon

Am 15.01.2018 um 19:57 schrieb Rob Nickerson:
> I missed a crucial word: "data".
>
> Isn't cc-by-sa imagery ok (with cc-by-sa DATA being the problem)?
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
> On 15 Jan 2018 12:46 p.m., "Rob Nickerson" <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com
> <mailto:rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     John provided a link on how to access the images under Cc by sa.
>     You have to go through a few steps. Have you tried and had no
>     success?
>
>     Isn't cc-by-sa imagery ok (with cc-by-sa being the problem)?
>
>     Either way, thanks John for bringing this forward :-)
>
>     Best,
>     Rob
>
>     On 15 Jan 2018 10:54 a.m., "Christoph Hormann"
>     <chris_hormann at gmx.de <mailto:chris_hormann at gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>         On Monday 15 January 2018, John Gilmore wrote:
>         >
>         > Planet Labs has already released all their California satellite
>         > imagery under a CC-BY-SA license [...]
>
>         Actually no - while they have claimed to have done this there
>         is no
>         imagery actually available under such a license (if there was
>         you would
>         be able to provide a link to the images - wouldn't you?) - a
>         clear case
>         of openwashing.
>
>         Besides that everyone should know that Planet Labs is a
>         persistent OSM
>         license violator:
>
>         https://www.planet.com/gallery/ <https://www.planet.com/gallery/>
>         https://www.planet.com/explorer/
>         <https://www.planet.com/explorer/>
>         https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
>         <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution>
>
>         so any kind of cooperation between the OSMF and them is - in
>         light of
>         this context - likely out of the question.
>
>         --
>         Christoph Hormann
>         http://www.imagico.de/
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         osmf-talk mailing list
>         osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>         <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20180115/1d99a16c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20180115/1d99a16c/attachment.sig>