[OSM-talk-be] Copyright violation on massively distributed flyers

[Ruben Maes]

On woensdag 3 augustus 2016 15:59 Marc Gemis wrote:
> I've send a couple of those letters and always tried to be friendly along
> the lines of  "I'm a contributor, proud that you use our work, you forgot
> attribution, maybe next release/publication include it, more info on
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright"

Me too, with success. I actually track mine on the wiki.[1]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:M!dgard/Copyrightbrieven

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Pieter-Jan Pauwels <
> pieter-jan.pauwels at okfn.org> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ruben,
> >
> > Don’t get me wrong, I totally agree with your email, only your sentence
> > about the attribution requirement being deliberately neglected seems way
> > off. I have a non-print marketing background and I can tell you nobody
> > knows the anything about licenses in re-using materials (except
> > contributors and legal counselors). I’ve been evangelising open licenses
> > for over 2 years now and I still get the same reaction from high level
> > marketeers to uni students: “What do you mean we can use Images on Google
> > Images? Then why would they make them available in the first place?”  And
> > that’s just for images, let alone, data or virtual maps.
> >
> > So yes contact them, but don’t start with going in offensive mode by
> > tapping them on the fingers. Awareness and open discussions bring in more
> > souls to the (l)(r)ight side.
> > Maybe we should consider more info on http://osm.be/nl/usage about how
> > the license applies when graphically copying or screenshotting the map,
> > because now it’s very data focused, no?
> >
> > Don’t let this stop you from sharing such examples though. The more we
> > know how maps are reused and misused, the better we can handle it in the
> > future.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Pieter-Jan Pauwels
> > Community Coordinator
> > Open Knowledge Belgium
> > m: +32 476 66 27 77 a: Sint-Salvatorstraat 18/101, 9000 Gent
> > s: www.openknowledge.be e: pieterjan at openknowledge.be
> >
> >
> >
> > On 03 Aug 2016, at 15:30, Ruben Maes <ruben at janmaes.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have a feeling that they were actually aware of the attribution
> > requirement, but deliberately didn't do it because it's difficult for us to
> > act on.

-- 
This message is OpenPGP signed.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20160803/b4126f4a/attachment.sig>