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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 01 November 2019, Kathleen Lu wrote:
>
> 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

Fully agree on all of these.

>  - 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)

Indeed.  My opinion is that the attribution guideline as a guideline
about one specific requirement *of the ODbL* - the attribution - should
not cover any explanation of the practical effects of the law that are
generic, i.e. that would apply equally to ODbL data and non-ODbL data.

More generally the attribution guideline should IMO not prohibit
anything.  It should tell people under what circumstances attribution
is required by the ODbL (essentially whenever a substantial amount of
ODbL data is publicly used) and how people should design this
attribution (i.e. explaining what "reasonably calculated to make any
Person [...] aware that Content was obtained from [...]" practically
means).  And as i said elsewhere these explanations should IMO be
conservative and err on the side of caution, i.e. what is recommended
should be clearly compliant with the ODbL.

If the LWG and the board want to invest a significant amount of
additional work to provide guidance to data users for some selection of
jurisdictions on data use without the need to comply with the ODbL that
would IMO be something for a separate "when you don't have to abide by
the requirements of the ODbL" guideline.  This makes much more sense to
be separate from the attribution guideline because it obviously also
applies to any other constraints of the ODbL.  If for example some
forms of showing an OSM map in a movie are fair use and therefore don't
have to comply with the ODbL in the US that does not only mean there is
no attribution requirement, it also means that such map could be made
from a derivative database without share-alike.  In a way this would be
an extension of what the "Substantial Guideline" currently covers.

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