[OSM-talk] Using an extract from OSM in an academic paper
david.cottingham at cl.cam.ac.uk
Thu Feb 21 18:21:28 GMT 2008
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, Barnett, Phillip wrote:
> As I understand it, while the copyright of the paper as a whole is owned
> by the publisher, an image which uses OSM data will be copyright OSM,
> not the publisher. Not really so unusual, open any newspaper or magazine
> and look at the photographs - almost all of them will have a Corbis
> credit or photographers name (ie implicit copyright notice)
> Same thing for your case.
Yes, except that in a newspaper/magazine they would have obtained a
license from the copyright holder to reproduce the image (probably not
just in print but in many other ways too). OSM's licence does allow the
reproduction of the data, but that reproduction (assuming that it is a
derivative work) would then be under CC-by-SA license. My worry is that IF
the paper as a WHOLE was considered a derivative work then the publisher
would be forced to license the whole thing as CC-by-SA, which they won't
consent to. If the image itself is derived, but the paper is a collective
work, then that's OK [still need to know what the accepted form of
attribution for OSM is, though :-( ].
(Richard: thanks for your opinion re collective work, BTW.)
isn't overly helpful in this regard, because it states:
"If you overlay OSM data with your own data created from other sources
(for example you going out there with a GPS receiver) and the layers are
kept separate and independent, and the OSM layer is unchanged, then you
may have created a collective work."
My images in print clearly don't keep the OSM data independent (my
overlays are on top of it). Of course, the image that would count as a
derived work is identifiably separate from the remainder of the paper.
So... With my "common sense" hat on, I would credit OSM and note that my
images are CC-by-SA, but the remainder of the paper is under the usual
publisher's copyright. With my "pendantic legalist" hat on, I'm not
certain that this is what the license says. Or am I missing the obvious?
Is a a paper "obviously" a collective work?
Has anyone published OSM data in a paper before? (My guess is the
answer is "yes"...)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Cottingham
> Sent: 21 February 2008 15:19
> To: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Using an extract from OSM in an academic paper
> Hi All,
> I'm sure this question's been asked before, but I've searched the
> and can't find an answer...
> I'm using OSM data as part of my research, and one of the resulting
> that I'm in the process of writing will have some images that combine a
> small amount of OSM data (most of the city of Cambridge, UK) with my own
> In order to be published, I must either own all copyright on the
> or be licensed to use whichever parts I do not hold copyright in.
> Can anyone enlighten me as to:
> - How should OSM be attributed as the source of the data? (e.g. "Map
> from Open Street Map, under CC-SA license").
> - Can I, despite the fact that the images I create that utilise OSM
> data are classed as derived works and hence the images should be
> dsitributed under the CC-SA license (correct me if I'm wrong!),
> still publish those images in a paper whose copyright will be owned by
> It's the second of these points that is particularly bothering me!
More information about the talk