[OSM-talk] Let's talk Attribution

[Kathleen Lu]

I absolutely agree that looking at industry standard seems a good
indication of what is reasonable.
If someone is hitting OSM's tile server, then that would be the industry
equivalent of using Google or HERE's API, for which they typically require
on-map logo attribution.
For using *data* from someone's geodatabase, on the other hand, the
standard attribution for webmaps varies widely from on-map to after several
menu choices; and the standard attribution on mobile is 5-6 clicks from the
UI.
Check out HERE's webmap: https://mobile.here.com/?x=ep. It takes 3 clicks
to get to this page: https://mobile.here.com/about/notices. And another 4
clicks to get to this page:
https://legal.here.com/en-gb/terms/general-content-supplier-terms-and-notices
After researching this question, I found no commercial data provider that
required data attribution as prominently as the FAQ suggests. Industry
standard would suggest a *much* less strict interpretation of what is
"reasonable" under the ODbL.
-Kathleen

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 5:28 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 28. Apr 2020, at 23:34, Kathleen Lu via talk <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> wrote:
>
> The FAQ is not the license. The license is the ODbL. The ODbL says
> absolutely nothing about whether attribution should be on a map or not.
> Read it here: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/index.html
>
>
>
> I am not a lawyer, but wouldn’t it seem logical to look what others are
> doing, when we must establish what this means: „ 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,...“
>
> It says „reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views,...aware“,
> any. To me this reads as if it has to be put very prominently, it has to be
> thrown into everyone’s face so that they become aware. Looking at the
> industry standard seems a good indication to find out what is “reasonable”,
> would you agree?
>
> Cheers Martin
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200428/0ccf7ec0/attachment.htm>