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

[Pieter-Jan Pauwels]

Hi Rube, 

That’s exactly what I meant, thanks. Even communication interns are surprised when we tell them to not use copyrighted imagery and to attribute open stuff. They don’t learn that in their (college) universities courses, let alone, figure it our themselves. My guess here is that they just hired a graphic designer to make this flyer and whoever is actually responsible (Cf. VU address) hasn’t even the slightest clue that they were doing something wrong. 

Considering how fuzzy the imagery is, this could just be a Mapbox Studio screenshot in high quality with adjusted colours. 

Kind regards,
Pieter-Jan
	
Community Coordinator
Open Knowledge Belgium
m: +32 476 66 27 77 a: Sint-Salvatorstraat 18/101, 9000 Gent
s: www.openknowledge.be <http://www.openknowledge.be/> e: pieterjan at openknowledge.be <mailto:pieterjan at openknowledge.be>



> On 03 Aug 2016, at 16:06, Ruben Maes <ruben at janmaes.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Pieter
> 
> Thanks for your reply. Replying inline:
> 
> On woensdag 3 augustus 2016 15:49 Pieter-Jan Pauwels wrote:
>> “What do you mean we can use Images on Google Images? Then why would they make them available in the first place?”
> 
> I believe you meant "What do you mean we can*not* use Images on Google Images?"
> Assuming that:
> 
>> (...) 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 cannot 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.
> 
> Really? How unprofessional...
> 
>> 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.
> 
> You're right.
> I kind of assumed that given the scale of this they must be knowing what they do.
> 
>> Maybe we should consider more info on http://osm.be/nl/usage <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? 
> 
> It's like they created their own style. That also contributed to me thinking they knew what they were doing. (Or they just used a rendering I haven't seen before.)
> 
>> (...)
>> 
>>> 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._______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20160803/a65e66b8/attachment.htm>