[Talk-us-massachusetts] 2019 Orthophotos are here!

[Greg Troxel]

Andy Anderson <aanderson at amherst.edu> writes:

> “No restrictions” and “Creative Commons Attribution” are not just strange but contradictory.

Often, software is offered under two licenses, and you can choose
either.  In many cases, the licenses are incompatible.

In this case, I think it's likely a case of specific text for this layer
and a site-wide default.  I will inquire gently; I have a semi-contact
there.

> I would argue that it is a creative work, it’s not just auto-generated
> but requires substantial human judgement as the linked description
> reveals.

There's engineering judgement and there's creative in the sense of the
copyright act.  There is no room for choosing camera angle, choosing a
crop, color scheme, depth of field, point of focus, or even white
balance.  If the specs were given to two competent organizations, and
flown the same spring, I would expect the resulting imagery sets would
be very similar, modulo sun angle from time of capture.  I doubt there
was an attempt to modulate sun angle for artistic purposes.  Rather, I
bet they were flying all day every day when the lack of cloud cover
permitted, racing to get done before the leaves came out.

However, this is not relevant as OSM doctrine is to make the most
pessimistic assumptions about copyright.