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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 01 November 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote:
>
> 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 said in that use of the term 'screenshot' refering to an accurate
representation of the appearance of a device screen or application
window the idea of cutting away an attribution that appears on the
device screen or in the application window is a highly questionable
speciality.

> >
> > 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.

Now i am thoroughly confused by your statements because before you said:

> > > We did this because we thought that
> > > incidental footage was probably fair use.

So did you or did you not formulate the draft because of the specific
legal situation in the US with fair use?

> >
> > 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.

I think you just kind of confirmed my point that people who regard
database protection as an obstacle to making profits tend to have a
very selective view of the whole thing.

In particular citing the protection duration in the UK according to the
law of 1710 seems somewhat strange in that context.  Doing so without
also mentioning the later history of copyright law in the UK (which is
of course highly significant for the world wide development of
copyright in general because most of it applied to the whole British
empire) seems very misleading.  I will leave it to the British members
here to set this right.

The practical effect of the EU database directive was relatively small
in most of the EU because courts had often in their ruling extended the
interpretation of classic copyright a lot into the domain of database
works.  One of the most significant changes of the EU database
directive at least in much of continental Europe was that while classic
copyright is here firmly tied to the person of the creator of a work EU
database law is meant to protect the (corporate) investments.  That is
a major paradigm shift in Europe but it is essentially irrelevant in
the US.

But we are really drifting very far from the original subject here.  The
whole discussion of what is formally permissible in which jurisdictions
is IMO massively besides the point for discussing the attribution
guideline - which should be what the OSM community (and to be clear i
am talking about the hobby mapper community here - not various
corporate and institutional lobbyists) expects from users of their work
under the ODbL in terms of attribution.  And this does not have to and
should not align to what would be enforcable in a court of law in the
most lenient jurisdiction in that regard world wide.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/