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

[Kathleen Lu]

I agree we've gone pretty far off topic.

Here are the main things I think we need to remember:
 - the law makes for certain exceptions to the coverage of copyright and
database protection
 - therefore, not all lawful uses need to be licenced
 - therefore, not all uses of OSM need to be under ODbL
 - therefore, one can sometimes use OSM without abiding by *any*
requirement of ODbL, including attribution, that use would be lawful, and
OSMF could do nothing legally to stop it
 - the attribution guidelines should not require more than the law or
attempt to prohibit things the law allows because the ODbL itself notes
that certain rights are granted by law and the ODbL does not interfere with
them - (if I understand you correctly, Christoph, you disagree with me on
this point)


On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 6:55 AM Christoph Hormann <chris_hormann at gmx.de>
wrote:

> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191101/a479f8e8/attachment.html>