[OSM-talk] Attribution guideline status update

Nuno Caldeira nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 18:38:22 UTC 2019


> Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on 
> top of an image
As written on CC-BY-SA

> *Attribution*.
>
> If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
>
> retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the 
> Licensed Material:
>
>  1. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any
>     others designated to receive attribution, in any r_*easonable
>     manner requested by the Licensor*_ (including by pseudonym if
>     designated);
>
  in 3 a 1 A 1 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode



> that no interaction is allowed???

it says:

> 4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced
> Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you
> Publicly Use a Produced Work, _You must include a notice associated with__
> __the Produced Work_ reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses,
> _views,_ accesses, interacts with, or is _otherwise exposed_ to the 
> Produced
> Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative
> Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it
> is available under this License.
If you can explain me how  "reasonably calculated" to anyone that views 
or is exposed means that no attribution must be visibly on the Produced 
work. Feel free, i would like to know.

Unless OSMF when we switched from CC to ODbL mislead the contributors 
and it's contributor terms, which i highly doubt.


Let's do an exercise.

LiveStream, a company of Vimeo uses OSM data on their website via a 
third party provider (Mapbox). I contacted LiveStream to comply with the 
license, they reply they are not using OSM data. Strange since i see my 
contributions on it, maybe they are not aware (being premium clients 
doesn't allow you to remove the attribution, other than the service 
provider, Mapbox). Asked them who sold them my data without complying 
with the license that i agreed my content to be distributed under. For 
over one month their legal department is still checking this.

Link with a map example (feel free to browse to your contribution area), 
click on the "i" for the map to display 
https://livestream.com/accounts/9869799/events/7517661 printscreen of 
the maphttps://ibb.co/TH4LbFp

Now the questions:

1 - Are they fulfilling the license?

a) yes

B) no


2 - Who's responsible?

a) Mapbox

b) LiveStream/Vimeo


But following your "Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that 
attribution must be on top of an image or that no interaction is 
allowed", i have search all LiveStream website and there's no notice at 
all of OSM data.


3 - Who's not aware?

a) Mapbox, an OSMF corporate member

b) LiveStream/Vimeo, client of Mapbox

c) contributors/OSMF



Às 18:56 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
> Where in CC-BY-SA's license does it say that attribution must be on 
> top of an image or that no interaction is allowed???
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:17 AM Nuno Caldeira 
> <nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com <mailto:nunocapelocaldeira at gmail.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>     So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the
>     bellow quote was not true?
>
>>     Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.
>
>     https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F
>
>
>     Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to
>     interact to acknowledge the notice.
>
>     Às 18:08 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
>>
>>         Guidelines by the licensor
>>
>>>         On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with
>>>         users of our data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court
>>>         would make a final decision on the issue, however we hope
>>>         these guidelines are helpful to *avoid *disputes arising in
>>>         the first place and can be considered by the courts in
>>>         coming to their verdict. 
>>
>>         from
>>         https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
>>
>>
>>     Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have
>>     quoted here isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might*
>>     happen and what motivates OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly,
>>     OSMF can choose to change the language you have quoted as a part
>>     of changing the guidelines!
>>     Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the
>>     contract, is taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the
>>     only thing that matters. The words of the licence matter more,
>>     and if there is a conflict between what the licensor thinks and
>>     what the licence says, the words of the licence will control. In
>>     that case, the licensor is simply "wrong" (and there are plenty
>>     of cases where that was the end result).
>>     You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out
>>     reasonable guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are
>>     unreasonable and not tied to the language of the licence, then no
>>     one, either users of the data or judges, will listen to OSMF,
>>     and, under the law, rightly so.
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20190809/3af36ec5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the talk mailing list