[Osmf-talk] [OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

[Kathleen Lu]

>
> In any case - the technical method of reproducing an image (the
> screenshot) has IMO no bearing on the likeliness that a certain use of
> this image is fair use.  If you meant to use the term 'screenshot' in
> the sense of a specific class of use cases your statement would make
> more sense - but then the scenario of KaiRo of attribution being cut
> away 'incidentally' becomes a highly questionable speciality (and let's
> face it - incidentally cutting away attribution is not something that
> tends to happen in reality, this is almost universally intentional).
>

I was using screenshot to refer to the circumstance of a person viewing a
map, whether web or an app, and taking a screenshot of what appears on
their screen. As I understood KaiRo's remarks, he was referencing instances
of screenshots by users of an app in order to illustrate what they are
referring to when they comment about the app.

>
> > We specifically noted that for incidental footage of a third party
> > map, the producers of the video/films did not need to do anything
> > additional. We did this because we thought that incidental footage
> > was probably fair use. If that was not clear enough in the draft,
> > then I will note that as feedback to make it clearer in the next
> > draft.
>
> If that is the case (i.e. you make a recommendation based on what the
> law in the US permits but which might not be allowable elsewhere based
> on the ODbL) i would recommend removing that recommendation.


That is not the case. I was explaining to you why there was not a
contradiction.

Because - as Nuno already implied - cherry picking the most lenient
> jurisdiction on a case by case basis to generate the most lenient
> attribution recommendations is not really a good idea.


The EU database directive is itself limited and permits insubstantial
extracts for any purposes. Note that in the screenshot circumstance, the
person taking the screenshot has no direct access to the database (OSM) at
all, so there is a question of whether it would be an extraction at all,
much less a "substantial" extraction of OSM.

People looking at the EU database directive as an inconvenient
> constraint to their business models often seem to forget that EU
> database protection also comes with contraints and limitations that do
> not exist in classic copyright - most obviously the shorter protection
> duration.
>
> The EU database directive was an additional right to grant protections
that did not previously exist in the majority of the EU either.
Furthermore, the "classic" copyright term in England (which pre-directive
treated databases as protected by copyright) was only 14 years, so all in
all, I think it's fairer to characterize the EU database directive as an
expansion of rights than a trade-off.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20191031/4458b477/attachment.html>