Attribution guideline status update

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
117 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Attribution guideline status update

SimonPoole
As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document and
address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media platforms
we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define concrete
minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
something different. 

We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and are now
largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
make it available for public comment together with a BoF session at SotM
next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a coffee
break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
appreciate feedback on.

Simon

PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to appropriate
another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Christoph Hormann-2

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".

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Yves-2
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
Hi Simon,
This guideline is a great piece of work, thanks a lot to all the participants.
Inevitably, this will be too much or not enough for anybody, however I find the content reasonable and in line with what I understood from current written expectations.
A few more mockups, notably for minimaps and apps would be great.
After all the text is clear enough and I would find the "yes, but we want to let the designer some freedom" argument a bit hypocritical.
Yves

Le 9 août 2019 09:41:25 GMT+02:00, Simon Poole <[hidden email]> a écrit :
As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document and
address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media platforms
we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define concrete
minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
something different. 

We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and are now
largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
make it available for public comment together with a BoF session at SotM
next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a coffee
break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
appreciate feedback on.

Simon

PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to appropriate
another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
SimonPoole wrote:
> the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we
> would appreciate feedback on.

This is really good, and very much in accordance with both the text of the
ODbL and the long-standing precedents set by the osm.org/copyright page.
Thank you.

Two small wording clarifications:

"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."

This probably needs to be qualified to the "currently visible map
rendering", and "50%" phrased as "50% of objects" or similar - just to
clarify the (quite likely) scenario where a map uses OSM data in (say)
Turkey, TomTom everywhere else, and Natural Earth for coastlines/land.

"It is permissible to use a mechanism to collapse the attribution as long as
it is initially fully visible"

This would be better as "It is permissible to provide a user-activated
mechanism to...". There are apps which flash up an OSM credit for under a
second, after which it disappears (including one terrific iOS mapping app
which I would otherwise recommend).

cheers
Richard




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Nuno Caldeira
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2

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. 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".


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 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.

That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with an
obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one.

"Second rate attribution" is not a problem. If Mapco[1] want to put a big
Mapco logo on their maps, that is absolutely fine and dandy according to the
ODbL.

The problem is when there is a big Mapco logo on the map; no OSM attribution
other than the infamous "(i)"; and the latter is justified by saying
"there's no room" when the former clearly disproves that. This is an
infringement of ODbL 4.3 and our favourite "reasonably calculated" clause.

But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution needs to
be at least on the same level of
prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers, service
providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL.

> Overall i think this is totally unacceptable and looks pretty much
> like being written by corporate representatives

Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was editing a
magazine about inland waterways and has been on osm.org/copyright ever
since, so nope. :)

Richard

[1] let's be honest, we're mostly talking about Mapbox and Carto here



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/General-Discussion-f5171242.html

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Jóhannes Birgir Jensson
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
I think we move in different mapper communities as "mapping for the reward of being recognized by external data users" has never even been on my list, or of those mappers I know, of reasons for why we map.

Of course everyones self-image is their own, so I don't know about your claim of there being a fundamental one for the whole community.

Just my 2 krónur.

-- /OSM: Stalfur


9. ágúst 2019 kl. 11:15, skrifaði "Christoph Hormann" <[hidden email]>:

> 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.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That is not something that the ODbL requires. There are licences with
> an obnoxious advertising clause but ODbL isn't one.
>
> "Second rate attribution" is not a problem. [...]

Just for understanding what second rate attribution is:  For example the
map on the bottom right of:

https://www.zeit.de/politik/2019-07/strasse-von-hormus-bundesregierung-marinemission-usa-iran

printing a prominent "Zeit Online" below the map (self attribution) but
showing OSM attribution only on user activity.

> But you can't start requiring that "the OpenStreetMap attribution
> needs to be at least on the same level of
> prominence and visibility as... other data providers, designers,
> service providers or publicists", because that's not in the ODbL.

It is a community guideline - a recommendation of the community on how
to work with OSM data to comply with the license.  No data user has to
follow the guideline - the only binding document is the license itself.  
The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how to
comply with the license.  The Guidelines should never suggest something
that would violate the license (like as mentioned the 50 percent rule)
but it can of course suggest things that are not strictly required by
the license.  And saying "if you attribute in this way that is
perfectly fine with the community" is useful even if "this way" goes
beyond the minimum requirements of the license.

And i also think rejecting second rate attribution is perfectly in line
with and supported by the "reasonably calculated" requirement of the
ODbL since with a significantly less prominent attribution of OSM
compared to other attributions given this is less the case.  In the
case linked to above for example removing the "Zeit Online" would
increase the likelihood that a page visitor - when asked - could
correctly identify the map source because they would be more likely to
look under the 'i' than if they have the obvious other explanation (map
produced by Zeit Online out of thin air) being presented as the
simplest answer.

> Your point 2 is objecting to something I wrote in 2012 when I was
> editing a magazine about inland waterways and has been on
> osm.org/copyright ever since, so nope. :)

You are free to disagree with me but i hope you do not consider this
statement to be an argument on the matter.

For better understanding:  Point 2 refers to a certain pattern in the
design of the document and lists a number of example to demonstrate
that.  You could argue the observation of there being such a pattern or
you could argue the individual examples.  You however did neither of
these in your statement.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Jóhannes Birgir Jensson
On Friday 09 August 2019, Jóhannes Birgir Jensson wrote:
> I think we move in different mapper communities as "mapping for the
> reward of being recognized by external data users" has never even
> been on my list, or of those mappers I know, of reasons for why we
> map.

Please don't twist my words - i have not said mappers are "mapping for
the reward of being recognized by external data users".  I said "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".  That is a huge difference.

The growth of the mapper community and in particular the increase in the
number of mappers who are externally motivated to map (like paid
mappers or mappers in organized humanitarian mapping projects) can
certainly lead to the impression that those mappers whose commitment
depends on the social contract between mappers and data users being
honored by the data users are not strictly needed any more for the
project to survive.  I would not be too sure about that though.  
Research on social networks in general typically shows that the
function and attractiveness of a network to participants often depends
on a relatively small number of participants.  And in particular power
mappers who might have over many years mapped a significant fraction of
their home town and environment are quite likely to become demotivated
when they see that data users increasingly just rip off their work and
can't be bothered to even acknowledge their contribution in a very
basic and collective fashion.  With mapper retention over longer time
being an issue in general this is a significant problem.

Note that this idea of the function of attribution in OSM is not my
invention, this is a matter that has been discussed plenty of times
over the years with the basic point i am trying to make here being
agreed on by many different people.  Obviously there are also many
mappers who don't care about attribution and who would be fine or would
even prefer if OSM data was PD.  But that is not my point here.  
Because also those mappers are to a large fraction fully aware that
this view is not universal.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Andy Mabbett
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 08:41, Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document

Some thoughts:

> www.openstreetmap.org/copyright

openstreetmap.org/copyright (without "www") works, and should be
preferred (several occurrences).

> Our requested attribution is "© OpenStreetMap contributors".

Add "or the equivalent in the local language".

Change "requested" to "preferred", since other forms are allowable.

> You should qualify the credit to explain what OSM content you are
> using. For example, if you have rendered OSM data to your own
> design, you may wish to use "Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors".

Confusion between "should" and "may".

> If OpenStreetMap data accounts for a minority (less than
> 50%) part of the visible map rendering...

The concerns others have raised could be addressed by changing this to
"If less than 50% of the data used for the visible map rendering is
from OpenStreetMap..."

> Except for small images

"small" is subjective; give a definition.

>Applications that incorporate a geocoder must credit OpenStreetMap

Change to "Applications that incorporate a geocoder that uses
OpenStreetMap data must credit OpenStreetMap"

> or in a footnote/endnote if that is where other credits appear and/or in the "acknowledgements" section

Change to "or in a footnote/endnote and/or in the 'acknowledgements'
section, whichever is where other credits appear"

> Tv, film or video

Typo; should be "TV, film or video"

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
Hi,

I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
altogether.

The term "OpenStreetMap Contributors" is the unwieldy; it just sounds
strange to say "this is a map made by OpenStreetMap contributors" when
what we really want to say is "this is OpenStreetMap". When translated
into German, you would have to say "OpenStreetMap-Beitragende" or, more
correctly, "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap", which to the un-initiated
sounds a bit strange and kind of dilutes the OpenStreetMap brand by
adding things before or after. I am pretty sure that there are languages
where grammar in fact requires that the "contributors" be placed before
OSM (as in my "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap" example) and where no
grammatically correct way exists to place OSM first.

I know, OpenStreetMap is not a legal entity and therefore cannot be said
to own the copyright. Then again, "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors" is
not technically correct either, as there are many ways in which you can
contribute to OSM, but only some of them will earn you a share of the
copyright in the map. Someone who contributes to OSM by giving us money,
or writing code, or organising meetups, is not part of the group that
holds the rights in the map.

I would find a simple "(c) OpenStreetMap" better, more snappy, more
recognizable than if we demand that the "contributors" are mentioned.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Clifford Snow


On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 7:35 AM Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
altogether.

I agree, I've often felt that the OpenStreetMap Contributors was unwieldy. If we agree to the change, I imagine that OpenStreetMap would need to be redefined to include its data contributors.   

Best,
Clifford

--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Jóhannes Birgir Jensson
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
I concur, this becomes long and unwieldy fast in my own language and to fully capture it requires a full sentence, with a comma for clarity even.

Behind OpenStreetMap the brand we have contributors amongst others.



9. ágúst 2019 kl. 14:40, skrifaði "Frederik Ramm" <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
> altogether.
>
> The term "OpenStreetMap Contributors" is the unwieldy; it just sounds
> strange to say "this is a map made by OpenStreetMap contributors" when
> what we really want to say is "this is OpenStreetMap". When translated
> into German, you would have to say "OpenStreetMap-Beitragende" or, more
> correctly, "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap", which to the un-initiated
> sounds a bit strange and kind of dilutes the OpenStreetMap brand by
> adding things before or after. I am pretty sure that there are languages
> where grammar in fact requires that the "contributors" be placed before
> OSM (as in my "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap" example) and where no
> grammatically correct way exists to place OSM first.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
Hi

Static Images.

"Static images should be generally attributed the same way as dynamic images, " I agree & a way to enable users to easily add attribution needs to be created. The Share>Image feature on the main page should automatically image stamp the attribution into the corner. "images of areas less 10’000 m2 or fewer than 100 features do not require attribution." For a static image I'm struggling to see what the area coverage or the number of items contained has to do with adding an attribution - an image is an image, irrelevant of size. DaveF On 09/08/2019 08:41, Simon Poole wrote:
As we've mentioned multiple times over the last months, the LWG decided
last year to consolidate all attribution guidance in to one document and
address some of the use cases that have become common over the last 7
years that previously had none. Particularly in the light of the
parallel discussions about attribution on larger social media platforms
we need to make up our minds what we actually want, and define concrete
minimum requirements for acceptable attribution. To not do this just
provides the excuse of pointing to the cacophony of voices all saying
something different. 

We've been working on and off on the document for a while, and are now
largely finished. Going forward we intend to wikify the document and
make it available for public comment together with a BoF session at SotM
next month (which probably means that we'll have to appropriate a coffee
break). You can have a glimpse at the text here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e_IQYHtqVivGRw4O4EOn6__-LGMuzPlWz6XKEdAkwW0/edit?usp=sharing
the few things that are not nailed down belong to those that we would
appreciate feedback on.

Simon

PS: the number of coffee breaks permitting we might want to appropriate
another one for the discussion of a tile licence change.




_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Tordanik
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
Thank you for your work! I believe that clearly documenting our
expectations is a very important step towards solving the current
problems surrounding attribution. It will help well-intentioned data
users to avoid accidentally messing up OSM attribution, and it leaves
fewer excuses for the less well-intentioned ones – making it easier for
us to put pressure on them to improve their practices.

I do have a couple of questions/comments about the current draft:

* Can you confirm that the current attribution practices on Wikipedia
and many similar projects would be covered by the "small images" case?

* I believe video games/simulations should be given similar treatment as
fictional movie productions by permitting attribution in the credits as
an alternative to the current options. Not allowing this seems to
contradict the larger "in a location where customarily attribution would
be expected" principle, as rolling credits are customary for many gaming
genres. (I'm mostly thinking of traditional PC or console games here,
not so much of mobile apps.)

* What's the guidance on scenarios where software does not ship with OSM
data, and does not display online maps, but e.g. allows downloading map
data for offline use? Would it be acceptable to make the license
information part of the download process, or is it still required that
attribution is visible on-screen during use?

Tobias

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Nuno Caldeira
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2


Às 14:56 de 09/08/2019, Christoph Hormann escreveu:
On Friday 09 August 2019, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
It is a community guideline - a recommendation of the community on how 
to work with OSM data to comply with the license.  No data user has to 
follow the guideline - the only binding document is the license itself.  
The purpose of the guideline is to give practical guidiance how to 
comply with the license.  The Guidelines should never suggest something 
that would violate the license (like as mentioned the 50 percent rule) 
but it can of course suggest things that are not strictly required by 
the license.  And saying "if you attribute in this way that is 
perfectly fine with the community" is useful even if "this way" goes 
beyond the minimum requirements of the license.

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

what companies are doing, is exactly the opposite, they justify their actions based on the license interpretation to their own interests, not taking into account what the licensor says.

The license is clear:

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.
Unless someone can explain me how i'm i suppose to see the notice when i'm view or am exposed to their produced work if they are not showing it visibly and clearly without me having to interact to either click an "i" icon or go through endless submenus to figure out what's the map source. the word "interacts" is there for a reason...




And i also think rejecting second rate attribution is perfectly in line 
with and supported by the "reasonably calculated" requirement of the 
ODbL since with a significantly less prominent attribution of OSM 
compared to other attributions given this is less the case.  In the 
case linked to above for example removing the "Zeit Online" would 
increase the likelihood that a page visitor - when asked - could 
correctly identify the map source because they would be more likely to 
look under the 'i' than if they have the obvious other explanation (map 
produced by Zeit Online out of thin air) being presented as the 
simplest answer.

quoting ODbL:

4.8 Licensing of others. You may not sublicense the Database.
They must keep the notice intact, therefore attributing OSM.


When we switched from CC to ODbL, this was documented as:

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

Ditching the attribution for second rate attribution is not only unfair, does not meet this and also goes against OSMF objects of the foundation articles. Unless someone explains me how we are promoting the growdth, development and distribution of free geospatial data to those that are not aware of it by hiding the source of the wonderful maps those companies do with the data from this lovely community.

you show users and viewers of whatever you do with our data clearly where you got the data from. A lot of contributors have spent and spend a lot of time and effort adding data from virtually every country in the world. We would also like people to know about our project and perhaps use or contribute data themselves.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#What_do_you_mean_by_.22Attribution.22.3F

Also it's crucial the attribution has in marketing and promotion of the project. Or are we having a Working group for that?


About omitting permanently the "contributors" part by me is fine, but i truly hope the argument of "lack of space to display" will not be used like it's being abusively justified like it is now.


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Nuno Caldeira
In reply to this post by Tordanik

> * What's the guidance on scenarios where software does not ship with OSM
> data, and does not display online maps, but e.g. allows downloading map
> data for offline use? Would it be acceptable to make the license
> information part of the download process, or is it still required that
> attribution is visible on-screen during use?
>
> Tobias


 From my perspective, the user is aware of the map source and must be
sure of the terms of it. Example Arcgis or QGIS software, both allow to
use OSM as basemap or download the data. They do not show the license.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by Nuno Caldeira

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.
 


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
I agree, this would be more snappy and more international. It woulrd not be necessary to translate the attribution for various languages.   By shortening the attribution, their would be less excuses to not attribute on the map.

 
Pierre


Le vendredi 9 août 2019 10 h 40 min 27 s UTC−4, Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]> a écrit :


Hi,

I wonder if we could perhaps get rid of the "Contributors" mention
altogether.

The term "OpenStreetMap Contributors" is the unwieldy; it just sounds
strange to say "this is a map made by OpenStreetMap contributors" when
what we really want to say is "this is OpenStreetMap". When translated
into German, you would have to say "OpenStreetMap-Beitragende" or, more
correctly, "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap", which to the un-initiated
sounds a bit strange and kind of dilutes the OpenStreetMap brand by
adding things before or after. I am pretty sure that there are languages
where grammar in fact requires that the "contributors" be placed before
OSM (as in my "Beitragende zu OpenStreetMap" example) and where no
grammatically correct way exists to place OSM first.

I know, OpenStreetMap is not a legal entity and therefore cannot be said
to own the copyright. Then again, "(c) OpenStreetMap contributors" is
not technically correct either, as there are many ways in which you can
contribute to OSM, but only some of them will earn you a share of the
copyright in the map. Someone who contributes to OSM by giving us money,
or writing code, or organising meetups, is not part of the group that
holds the rights in the map.

I would find a simple "(c) OpenStreetMap" better, more snappy, more
recognizable than if we demand that the "contributors" are mentioned.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Attribution guideline status update

Nuno Caldeira
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list

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.
 


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
1234 ... 6