[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Fri Aug 9 12:17:14 UTC 2019

About the 50% exception. i recently had to be unpleasant with Fatmap 
(their app and website https://fatmap.com/), after 2 months of zero 
action from their side. Source 
https://twitter.com/iamnunocaldeira/status/1136624467000602624 after my 
message on the 3rd of August, they contacted me via private message, to 
which i explained how to attribute, linking to copyright page, OSMF 
guidelines and license terms. They stated:

> "Thank you - yes our mapping and tech teams are in touch with them 
> both now. _We have over 20 different providers for our map_, all with 
> different requirements and different integrations. So we are working 
> out the best solution!"

To which i replied i had nothing to do with the other sources, how they 
must fulfil the other sources attribution (if applies)  and they should 
comply with our attribution as required. They then replied:

> Once we have found a solution together with the OSM and MapBox teams, 
> I will let you know!"
i asked them with whom of OSM/OSMF they are speaking to, they never 
replied back. Can anyone from OSMF tell me with who they are working in 
OSM/OSMF? I would like to know or if they are just saying they are 
talking to, when they are not. AFAIK we do not open exceptions about 
this subject.

Another concern i have by their reply is Mapbox teams dictating how and 
when the attribution must be displayed. This being said, i start to 
believe we should remove the 50% exception (how would we actually know 
if it's 51% OSM or 49%?), because it will be used as a loophole to avoid 
the attribution. Fatmap example is a perfect of Christoph concern about 
corporate usage. We shouldn't place our data/derivate with attribution 
with the same usage of paid map data/derivates that is not subject to 
attribution if paid for.

It's just another example to the long list of example of Strava, 
Facebook, Instagram, Vimeo Livestream (Mapbox client, that has their 
legal dept checking if they should attribute or not) and more that are 
using OSM without attributing at all. As i have shared on other lists, 
_*it's a shame*_ most of these lack of attribution examples i gave comes 
first or second handed from corporate members of OSMF (Facebook and 
Mapbox). Up until they give an example of how to be good citizens of 
OSM, these guidelines won't solve the issue. For months, both of these 
companies have been silence about it and OSMF board too. Which results 
in the lack of attribution being a "normal thing", when it's not.

Sadly i'm starting to believe these lack of attribution will only be 
solved once a contributor (individual or a national agency that provided 
data to OSM under the license) sues one of these companies. As we know 
as soon as someone does not comply with the license (or formally 
informed by the licensor) it's rights are terminated. If a contributor 
wants to sue for their content that they licensed to OSMF to be 
distributed only under ODbL, they are legit to take action. If this 
occurs, i fear it will damage OSM/OSMF image and fear of usage of data. 
which is not what we want and will affect OSMF OBJECTS 
<https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association#OBJECTS>. 
All of it can be avoided by simply doing what's on the license, instead 
of arguing if it should or not attribute open data that they are using 
for free without crediting.

Mea culpa as i also helped on this guidance. We do need to improve it, 
so feel free to suggest, share concerns.

Às 12:06 de 09/08/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:
> I am strongly against this in the current form because it addresses none
> of the major issues about corporate attribution of OSM (or lack
> thereof).
>
> 1) It does not in any way address the problem of second rate attribution
> (i.e. someone else - usually the service provider of the map service or
> the media outlet publishing the map) is being attributed more
> prominently than OSM.  The '50 percent rule' you invented:
>
> "If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than 50%) part of
> the visible map rendering, attribution with other sources on a separate
> page that is visible after user interaction is acceptable."
>
> is ridiculous because 50 percent of the map area being functionally
> empty is essentially a property of most maps, in particular at large
> scales or high zoom levels.  There is no basis in the ODbL for allowing
> attribution in a case where attribution is required that is
> not "reasonably calculated to make any person [...] aware".  Therefore
> i would consider that rule in clear violation of the license.
>
> And frankly it also contradicts the fundamental self-image of the mapper
> community.  As has been discussed plenty of times the way geodata is
> generated in OSM is fundamentally different from other geodata sources.
> While elsewhere people generating geodata are almost always rewarded
> for their work also in other form (like salery) in OSM the only
> recognition mappers receive from external data users is the attribution
> required by the license.  Putting OSM on the same level as other data
> providers like you do above is totally inappropriate.
>
> As previously said my suggestion for regulating this is:
>
> "If anyone else is attributed in the context of a work based on OSM data
> (like other data providers, designers, service providers or publicists)
> the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to be at least on the same level of
> prominence and visibility as those."
>
> 2) Also beyond that you formulate more exceptions than actual
> requirements and where you formulate requirements they are put in
> obviously weasely terms or are tightly limited to very specific
> situations:
>
> * "you may omit the word "contributors" if space is limited" - since
> space is always limited obviously this is a bogus requirement with no
> practical effect.  So you essentially say "© OpenStreetMap" is always
> sufficient.
>
> A suitable rule would be:
>
> "if space is so limited that printing '© OpenStreetMap contributors' at
> a legible text size would take an unreasonable amount of space you can
> shorten this to '© OpenStreetMap'"
>
> * "Except for small images, attribution must be visible [...]" - being
> vague here while being precise with the 480 pixel in case of mobile
> applications is remarkable.  But even more remarkable is that there is
> no attribution requirement given for these "small images" - which can
> be interpreted as if no attribution is required for small images at
> all!
>
> * Naturally the section on "Geocoding - Search" would be generic on any
> non-visual interactive applications using OSM data.  Limiting these
> requirements strictly to geocoding is questionable.
>
> * Declaring printing the URL as the only and a sufficient method "to
> make any Person [...] aware that [...] is available under this License"
> in non-digital/non-interactive applications does not seem a good way to
> implement the idea of the license.  Mentioning the license directly (©
> OpenStreetMap - source data available under ODbL) seems a more suitable
> and should at least be an equally allowable method of attribution in
> such cases.
>
> 3) Your paragraph about "Machine learning models" is essentially out of
> place in an attribution guideline.  The whole idea of a produced work
> becoming a derivative database is extremely delicate and with various
> issues.  The concept of derivative databases and produced works depends
> on an uninterrupted chain of responsibility from the original database
> via derivative database to produced work.  Interrupting this chain by
> allowing a produced work to be turned back into a derivative database
> essentially breaks the license.
>
> The very purpose of a machine learning system is to generate semantic
> data and a common property of such systems is that when run on the
> training scenario they more or less reproduce the training data.
> Considering this an exceptional use case is highly questionable.
>
> Sneaking this into an attribution guideline is ill-advised IMO.
> It seems this has been looked at purely from the perspective of
> corporate OSM data users and not from the perspective of hobby mappers.
> I see no reason other than corporate greed why machine learning models
> trained with OSM data should not be considered derivative databases.
>
> 4) The most obvious practical guideline to fulfill the "reasonably
> calculated" would be that the attribution would need to be designed in
> a way that at least 50 percent of the map users could, when asked about
> the origin of the map they are looking at, quickly and without much
> difficulty point to the attribution.  But you don't say anything in
> that direction.
>
> Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much like
> being written by corporate representatives as how they would like
> attribution to be handled with very little regard to the interests of
> the hobby mapper community and the mission of the OSMF.  I formulate
> this so strongly because i have on many occasions in the past pointed
> out that we have to formulate clear requirements to data users for what
> we expect from them - yet i can find hardly any of this in the draft.
> This is very disappointing.  As i have shown above with various
> formulation suggestion it is not actually that difficult to put clear
> requirements into words which makes me think this draft explicitly did
> not want to do so.
>
> If the OSMF is not able to create an attribution guideline that
> safeguards the interests of the OSM community we will have to create
> our own guideline that lives up to the promise of being a
> real "community guideline".
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190809/2d3bea71/attachment-0001.html>