[OSM-talk] [OSM-legal-talk] OSMF - OSM usage guidelines

[Nick Whitelegg]

On Sunday 18 Nov 2007 23:28, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> "Karl Newman" <siliconfiend at gmail.com> wrote:
> > And honestly, what's the harm in *comparing* to a copyrighted map? I'm
> > thinking side-by-side in a non-automated manner (i.e, not synchronized
> > scrolling), and not overlaid. My envisioned usage is as a QC function,
> > to identify areas which might need to be physically verified--spelling
> > differences, missing roads (easter eggs?), etc. So, 1. What's the harm
> > in that, and 2. How would anyone ever detect you had done it, let
> > alone prove it?
>
> Imagine the scene, in the boardroom of some multinational mapping company,
> MegaMapping Inc.
>
> OSM has achieved its goals, and it has freely available accurate mapping
> data for the planet, available for free download for every GIS application,
> every handheld navigator, and a complete suite of online mapping
> applications.
>
> MegaMapping Inc, is on the verge of losing billions of dollars of revenue,
> and it asks its lawyers to find a way to shut them down.
>
> The lawyers realise there is a two bit operation (no offence intended to
> all those who are committed to the project, but you know what I mean..) and
> this is a very poorly defined area of the law.  They are riding a wave of
> resurgence of intellectual property law, being driven by the US and EU
> around the world.
>
> The lawyers agree to target OSM as a derived work.  Their arguments to
> claim that OSM is a derived work are based on the precedents that a derived
> work is substantial appropriation of the labour of another.  The argument
> runs that OSM has leveraged off the work of MegaMapping Inc by only having
> to survey those areas which have roads, or features that need to be mapped.
> They have reduced their labour required by OSM members to map, by
> appropriation of the labour of MegaMapping Inc.  Therefore OSM is a derived
> work from the maps of MegaMapping Inc.
> The details of the suit arrive at OSMF.  Shutdown the OSM servers, hand
> over all the data which now becomes the property of MegaMapping Inc, or
> face a crippling law suit backed up by the resources of MegaMapping Inc.
>
> In my opinion, before we use any copyrighted source in any way, shape or
> form, whether that be for verification or anything else, we need to be
> confident that we are not only doing so in a legal way, but it is
> completely clear cut enough to legally defensible by the most
> straightforward of legal principles.
>
> If MegaMapping Inc is really threatened by OSM, they will be using every
> legal method at their disposal to maintain their revenue.  They owe that to
> their
> The easiest way OSM can steer clear of the possibility ot his happening, is
> for OSM to not use anything produced by MegaMapping Inc, in any way.
>
> Ian.

This suggests that one cannot even put a route which one planned with a road 
atlas into OSM, or a countryside route in whihc we used an Ordnance Survey 
map as an aid to navigation *even if we did not copy the information from the 
map* - which does seem to be at the extreme end of the scale and break common 
sense. I'd hope that we don't have to avoid doing things which common sense 
dictates is perfectly OK. For instance, do I need to recall everything I 
might have originally learnt - 10, 20 or 25 years ago - off a copyrighted map 
and remove it - even if I have later verified through other sources that that 
is the correct name? I'm sure most would agree that this would be a 
ridiculous thing to do.

Nick