We need to have a conversation about attribution

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

We need to have a conversation about attribution

Richard Fairhurst
Hi all,

In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service" providers
have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an click-through
'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:

https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png
https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG

(This should be obvious but I am in no means meaning to pick on Mapbox
or Apple here - as anyone who knows me will testify, I have the utmost
respect both for Mapbox's technical chops, their ability to iterate on a
compelling product and their success in building the biggest mapping
platform using OSM data; and I've been an Apple fanboy since my first
Mac IIsi back in, erk, 1992. They're just the two that sprang to mind,
bearing in mind that as someone that old, these social networks about
photos and stuff are way too modern for me.)

It should also be said that many providers - the majority - provide
attribution in compliance with our policy at osm.org/copyright, i.e.
showing attribution in the corner of the map, and in many cases
generously going beyond with "Improve this map" pages; and that some
providers will do great things like this much of the time and resort to
"(i)" or "About" only part of the time.

The policy, introduced with the changeover to the ODbL, says:

"We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”...
For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner
of the map."

There then follows an example screenshot of a map of Charlbury (woo)
with a credit in the corner. The OSM Foundation Legal FAQ is pretty much
the same
(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#Where_to_put_it.3F).

Historically the aim of requiring attribution has been partly to thank
contributors, and partly because it's a virtuous feedback loop. If you
see a map and it's wrong or incomplete, seeing "(c) OpenStreetMap" in
the corner shows you where the data comes from, so you can go and
improve it. That way we get more contributors, the map gets better, it's
more valuable to its consumers, so more people use it, so more people
improve it... and so on.

The legal rationale is 4.3 in the Open Database Licence
(https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html), and in
particular "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". The key phrase is "reasonably calculated" and our view in
2012 was that, since the major mapping providers (Google,
Navteq/Nokia/HERE, TomTom etc.) required and implemented on-screen
attribution, "reasonably" meant that users would expect a credit to be
provided in that way. The OSMF FAQ makes this explicit: "you should
expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same
prominence as would be expected by any other map supplier".

Full mea culpa: the /copyright page says "should" rather than "must"
purely because I wrote the page, I'm British and I, we, talk like that
(http://termcoord.eu/2016/08/the-truth-behind-british-impoliteness/ ,
especially the "I would suggest" line). It used to say "request" rather
than "require" for the same reason. In retrospect I should have realised
not everyone is British and we should really have hired a lawyer to
review the page. I think that months in the trenches of the licence
change had probably given us trench fever for things like that. Entirely
my fault and I take full responsibility for it (but you know, it's so
great not to have to write 500 monthly mails to legal-talk@ any more).

So we need to decide what our response is to web/in-app maps that do not
provide attribution in the manner requested by osm.org/copyright. This
response might be:

a) we are happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we
will update our requirements to say so
b) we will informally tolerate attribution being behind a credits screen
but we do not intend to update our requirements
c) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we
will update our requirements to say so
d) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we
will update our requirements to say so, and we will proactively seek out
data consumers that contravene these requirements
e) or many other options... fill in your suggestion here :)

Ultimately this decision has to come from the community. The rights in
OSM data, as the Contributor Terms makes clear, are held by the
contributors. OSMF is "using and sublicensing" it, under the terms that
you grant to OSMF, but you own the rights. OSMF is not able to license
away the rights of mappers.

There has been a lot of chatter over recent years about this issue but
the issue has never really broken through. Let's talk about it openly,
honestly and respectfully and get it sorted out for the benefit of both
mappers and data consumers.

cheers
Richard

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

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

General Discussion mailing list
On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service"
> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an
> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:
>
> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png
> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG


In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how they
find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom logo
like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap

With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated"
attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other companies.


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

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Warin
On 01/03/19 09:50, Paul Norman via talk wrote:

> On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>
>> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service"
>> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an
>> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:
>>
>> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png
>> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG
>
>
> In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how
> they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom
> logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap
>
> With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated"
> attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other
> companies. hat is a good thing on a small screen.

OSMand drops all the symbols from its map display when your not using
the screen - maximising the view of the map.
That is a good thing on a small screen.

Some apps start with an introductory screen (a 'splash' screen?) while
they boot. That might be a good place to have the OSM attribution?
Possibly there needs to be a selection of OSM attributions that the user
can select from?

-------------------

There are certain legal words that are used to enforce action. The word
'should' in not one of them.
 From my recollection the words 'shall' and 'will' are clearer choices,
one word for the customer, another for the provider.

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

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Andy Mabbett
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 22:35, Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> wrote:

> "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”...
> For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner
> of the map."

28 characters. There are many cases, such as mobile phones, where -
depending on user settings - that's either going to be too small to be
readable, or so big it obscures what people need to see.

> Full mea culpa: the /copyright page says "should" rather than "must"
> purely because I wrote the page, I'm British and I, we, talk like that

RFC 2119 is (or would have been) your friend:

   https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

> So we need to decide what our response is to web/in-app maps that do not
> provide attribution in the manner requested by osm.org/copyright. This
> response might be:

> e) or many other options... fill in your suggestion here :)

f) We move to PD / CC0 licensing.

<G,D&R>

> There has been a lot of chatter over recent years about this issue but
> the issue has never really broken through.

Perhaps because the community (that is, the mapping community, not the
mailing list community) just doesn't care that much - which suggests
your options a or b would apply?


--
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: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
Paul Norman via talk <[hidden email]> writes:

> On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>
>> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service"
>> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an
>> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:
>>
>> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png
>> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG
>
> In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how
> they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom
> logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap
>
> With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated"
> attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other
> companies.

Agreed.   The notion that there isn't room does not hold up to scrutiny.

I tend towards OSM being more aggressive about insisting that the
attribution rules be followed.

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

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mikel Maron-3
These are norms not rules. ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to happen, or anything about equivalence with other attribution. So even if OSMF were to take on enforcement, there's nothing to specific to enforce. (And I recommend we drop the whole license shaming shenanigans -- we should accept that OSM has won and we are not the underdogs any more. ) Sure we could get legal, but imagine the number of legal opinions about what "reasonably calculated" means. 

We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation. We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting pulse on the topic. afaik the LWG is actually thinking about updating the guidance to modern day usage, and welcome that effort. 


* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


On Thursday, February 28, 2019, 8:03:23 PM EST, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:


Paul Norman via talk <[hidden email]> writes:

> On 2019-02-28 2:35 p.m., Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>>
>> In recent years some OSM data consumers and "OSM as a service"
>> providers have begun to put the credit to OpenStreetMap behind an
>> click-through 'About', 'Credits', 'Legal' or '(i)' link. Examples:
>>
>> https://docs.mapbox.com/help/img/android/android-first-steps-intro.png
>> https://www.systemed.net/osm/IMG_1846.PNG
>
> In my mind what makes these examples particularly egregious is how
> they find room for image logos. If there's room for a Mapbox or Tomtom
> logo like in the images above, there's room for (c) OpenStreetMap
>
> With maps like this, I would expect a "reasonably calculated"
> attribution to have OSM with at least the prominence of other
> companies.

Agreed.  The notion that there isn't room does not hold up to scrutiny.

I tend towards OSM being more aggressive about insisting that the
attribution rules be followed.


_______________________________________________
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: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Frederik Ramm
Hi,

what I write below is my own opinion and not that of the OSMF board,
just as Mikel's opinion is his own and not that of the OSMF board.

On 01.03.19 02:51, Mikel Maron wrote:
> These are norms not rules. ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to
> happen, or anything about equivalence with other attribution. So even if
> OSMF were to take on enforcement, there's nothing to specific to
> enforce. (And I recommend we drop the whole license shaming shenanigans
> -- we should accept that OSM has won and we are not the underdogs any
> more. )

You make three points here, one that there's no rules we could enforce,
and then you say even if we could shame people into adhering to rules
that we cannot enforce, we shouldn't do that either, and that the reason
for this largesse was that "we have won".

I disagree in all three points.

1. I think that we can set up rules - not mere "recommendations" - that
we can enforce.

2. I think that we should shame people into following our rules if they
don't do it voluntarily.

3. I think that we should be firm in asserting our place in the geo data
world, and as long as other players in the field use intellectual
property regulations to their advantage, we should too. As long as
Google only give you their maps if you in turn acquiesce to being
tracked, so should we only give people our maps if they are willing to
follow our rules. This has nothing to do with "having won".

> We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation.

Frankly, I wouldn't believe you even if you were a lawyer. But you aren't!

> We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation can
> only be formulated through the OSMF

We would have to find a way to exclude corporate interests from
formulating that recommendation though, or we'd be like a supermarket
that lets its customers set the price. I.e. no board members or working
group members working for any business affected by a decision should
participate, and neither should the "advisory board" on which corporate
interests are represented.

The fact that the resulting sub-group of the OSMF would be quite small
is food for thought!

Bye
Frederik

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

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

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Mikel Maron-3
Mikel Maron wrote:
> We may not like that reality, but that's the underlying legal situation.
> We can certainly recommend a better way. And that recommendation
> can only be formulated through the OSMF; a mailing list discussion
> will not lead to a legal decision, though it's an interesting pulse on
> the topic. afaik the LWG is actually thinking about updating the
> guidance to modern day usage, and welcome that effort. 

How this works in practice (and I realise you know this, Mikel, I'm just
writing this out for the wider audience) is that the Licensing Working Group
puts together Community Guidelines:

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines

These, as the name implies, represent the settled will of the community
through practical, example-rich guidelines, explaining how the Open Database
Licence applies to the data that the community has created and owns the
rights in.

As the Community Guidelines page on the OSMF website says, "OSMF's role as
Licensor and publisher of the database should not involve dictating policy."

The existing (seven) guidelines focus on the applications of the sharealike
half of the licence. There is clearly some ambiguity about how attribution
is applied in practice, particularly in massive collective databases and in
smaller-screen situations, and such ambiguities is exactly what the
guidelines are intended for - "helping folks use OpenStreetMap data when
there is a concern about ambiguity or grey area in the specific and
practical context of the Open Database License, ODbL" to quote the LWG.

Representing the "settled will of the community" through a guidelines
requires determining the settled will. As the page on the Community
Guidelines process explains
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Community_Guidelines/How_We_Create_Community_Guidelines),
such guidelines can be proposed by the community (no kidding, Sherlock). By
starting the discussion here, we can begin to ascertain what the community
would want to see in a Community Guideline.

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: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst



Feb 28, 2019, 11:35 PM by [hidden email]:
This response might be:

a) we are happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so
b) we will informally tolerate attribution being behind a credits screen but we do not intend to update our requirements
c) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so
d) we are not happy for attribution to be behind a credits screen and we will update our requirements to say so, and we will proactively seek out data consumers that contravene these requirements
e) or many other options... fill in your suggestion here :)

Ultimately this decision has to come from the community. The rights in OSM data, as the Contributor Terms makes clear, are held by the contributors. OSMF is "using and sublicensing" it, under the terms that you grant to OSMF, but you own the rights. OSMF is not able to license away the rights of mappers.

There has been a lot of chatter over recent years about this issue but the issue has never really broken through. Let's talk about it openly, honestly and respectfully and get it sorted out for the benefit of both mappers and data consumers.
a) would require changing license again, right?

ODBL has

"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."

from what I see

b) is the worst one, it is hard to treat seriously ones who do it

c) I recommend doing this, I tried mailing Mapbox about their license-breaking
hiding attribution but at first their responded claiming that OSBL allows that,
after quoting that part of them they went back to not responding

d) what would be our options for especially stubborn ones? DMCA filed by OSMF?

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

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Andy Mabbett

Am 01.03.2019 um 01:12 schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 22:35, Richard Fairhurst <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> "We require that you use the credit “© OpenStreetMap contributors”...
>> For a browsable electronic map, the credit should appear in the corner
>> of the map."
> 28 characters. There are many cases, such as mobile phones, where -
> depending on user settings - that's either going to be too small to be
> readable, or so big it obscures what people need to see.

That is a bit of a myth, it is definitely not true now days and I doubt
it was ever outside of very early feature phones.

I display the attribution text from
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/gh-pages/sources/world/OpenStreetMap-Mapnik.geojson
(~38 characters) plus a logo plus zoom buttons at the bottom of the
screen on essentially any Android phone I've ever tested  (which for
example includes a 2010 HTC Desire HD) and it fits .

Does having to display the attribution constrain the layout, sure, but
that isn't different than for example if you would be using google, so
not a hardship  that only we are inflicting (and naturally essentially
every imagery layer has attribution requirements that are similar).



_______________________________________________
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: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Mikel Maron-3

Mar 1, 2019, 2:51 AM by [hidden email]:
ODbL doesn't specify how attribution needs to happen, or anything about equivalence with other attribution. So even if OSMF were to take on enforcement, there's nothing to specific to enforce.
Untrue, see

"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."



(And I recommend we drop the whole license shaming shenanigans -- we should accept that OSM has won and we are not the underdogs any more. )
I disagree. If Facebook uses OSM maps then they must obey our rules and let people know
who is an author of maps. If they disagree with them - well, Facebook is free to obtain map data
from competition.


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

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Nuno Caldeira
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst

Well wrote this yesterday at 3 AM, however due to the images it got stuck so im uploading them else where.

Over the last months i have expressed my concern about these interpretations of "its not on ODbL", OSMF requests dont count a thing, or it should be write "must" instead of "should".
Most of the companies use Mapbox and sadly this is setting a trend of "hidding"/ three step to view the attribution. Most famous cases are Instagram, SnapChat, Facebook in every app or even on the desktop browser....guess the size of the device for attribution doesnt apply here... speaking of the word HERE, they even credit OSM data to HERE (funny enough OSM is the only map that maps cable cars as ways). Maybe HERE its shorter to be displayed as attribution... check the email bellow i sent to Mapbox in August 2018 and after  few back and fourth emails....asked me on December the 4th to send URL to the screenshots when most of them are from apps. Can someone teach me how to grab url from them? And Facebook only replied to me once, never got a response from my second email....

I have requested several developers to fix it, few examples:

Pix4Dmapper (which on their desktop software isnt crediting OSM)

Moovit (they replied they do in their three dots icons under PARTNERS...afaik we do not do partnerships).

Maps.me have a 2 second display of the attribution when you open their app...to my email they replied " Even companies like Apple and Facebook and apps like OsmAnd and Galileo maps are using OSM data without link to OSM copyright page while browsing the map."

Tracedetrail "hides" the attribution under a elevation profile.

https://tracedetrail.com/
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tracedetrail.trailconnect&hl=en
https://itunes.apple.com/fr/app/trail-connect/id1071923011?l=en&mt=8

Good examples of attribution....so i guess its technically possible and not that hard to implement...or maybe its just a matter of choice or how you respect OSM/OSMF/ODbL:

Microsoft - Uses HERE and OSM and attributes both visibly on the footer https://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=48.187141%2C%2016.349561&q=48.187141%2C16.349561&cp=48.18694871145921~16.349901334904583&lvl=18&encType=1

ARCGIS Web - Uses OSM and ESRI data, credits both https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fae788aa91e54244b161b59725dcbb2a

European Commission  - credits OSM and other sources http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html and http://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/copernicus-emergency-management-service#zoom=2&lat=23.42974&lon=16.28085&layers=00B0T


I believe Attribution is important because it shows the source of the data, complies with OSM copyright  and can eventually attract more contributors to OSM (if 0.2% of Facebook members contribute....how many would they be? problably most wont even go through the 3 step to see the attribution...not everyone are maps geek. But more importantly, Facebook lack of attribution sets a terrible example on how to use OSM data without the requested attribution. If Facebook doesn't attribute why would any other startup or anyone else attribute?

I advocate for a permanent visible attribution. Do understand smartphone screens are smaller, none the less i dont see anyone not using GOOGLE attribution (cof cof we use that as an example on OSMF page on how to attribute). Solution in my point of view: OSM Logo as attribution ormake a shorter attribution.

Only devices that should have a "non permanent" are wearable devices, example Garmin devices uses OSM and credits on the info button.

Another subject about attribution we must decide is the "static maps" or thumbnails (facebook uses it among others). technically they are "substantial" if they have more than 100 elements, so they must credit. https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline#The_Guideline:_What_is_Insubstantial



EMAIL SENT TO MAPBOX IN AUGUST WITH EXAMPLES:

Another client of yours that is not complying with ODbL and with the requested attribution is Facebook/Instagram. They even credit maps to HERE which are OSM (via Mapbox on their Windows app).

Print-screen with proof (which as been sent to Facebook too, only got one reply after one month of sending the first email, which was quick replied by me and still no feedback on these). The layout is exactly the same (yours, Mapbox)  as this bad attribution that they have with a "i". I understand the usage of the "i" on a mobile device, on a desktop its just "hiding" the proper attribution, especially when they have two steps to check the attribution (click "i", click "legal map data" hyperlink to this page which credits Mapbox and OSM.... when OSM should be visible from the start as requested on the OSMF page, which i transcribe in the end of the email.

Facebook "attribution", which is completely wrong:

link to photo https://ibb.co/MSbgsW6 NOTICE TO TALK LIST, you have to press 3 times to acknowledge the map source...when it was HERE it was permanently visible

Part of the email sent to Facebook:

Examples of bad Facebook maps:

1) This map on the Facebook Windows App credits HERE on the lower left corner. I'm 100% sure that's not HERE ( i confirmed now as im writing the email, that this is still being credited to HERE). Firstly HERE does not map cable car as ways (check their map), on this map the Funchal cable car is represented as way just like OSM does. Also the land-use on the natural areas, matches last year geometry of OSM DB. The islets (which HERE does not map) and coastline to which i and others have contributed since 2011 is different. The ferry boat from Funchal to Porto Santo is labelled as "Funchal-Porto Santo-Funchal" as in OSM and not "Funchal- Porto Santo" as in HERE. This is clearly misleading users of what's the source of the map (also there's no "i", even used wrongly with that hyperlink without displaying it right away). There might be HERE data on the map, however crediting HERE with visible attribution and not OSM is disrespectful.

link to photo https://ibb.co/wzZL1D5


OSM screenshot as in September that shows the ways of the four cable car (the four lines with dots) that are also shown on the previous image.
link to photo https://ibb.co/k3z3CS7

Query on https://overpass-turbo.eu/# for "aerialway=gondola" that shows the four cable cars that are displayed on the map credited to HERE.
link to photo https://ibb.co/BsBxywV


OSM attribution which is required.


https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#How_should_I_attribute_you.3F

Where to put it?

This credit needs to appear in a place that is reasonable to the medium or means you are utilising. In other words, you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the same way and with the same prominence as would be expected by any other map supplier.


For a browsable electronic map (e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile phone application), the credit should typically appear in the corner of the map, as commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps.

Please do not allow your clients to act this way, not only its not complying with OBdL, its a lack of respect for the contributors and OSM community.

But more important, acting like Facebook sets a terrible example of how not to use OSM open data without complying with OBdL. If they, why would anyone else?




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

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3

Just a couple of general comments on this.

- The LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance this year see https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group/Minutes/2019-01-10

- I would have preferred that the discussion take place when we've actually written something, because some of the issues raised have been settled since at least 2014, including obtaining legal advice on what  "reasonably calculated" is, but that's life :-). In any case the community can expect a draft guideline for discussion in the upcoming months.

And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the results of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 which a) states that the attribution is be default expanded, and b) that should be the case "whereever possible" which in our understanding limits the use of a default collapsed attribution to cases where it is physically impossible to show the expanded version, for example very small map snippets.  In 2014 we felt that this was acceptable (we don't have an formal statement on this iirc), and I would go out on a limb and say that it would still be considered a reasonable guideline.

Simon



_______________________________________________
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: We need to have a conversation about attribution

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3


Am 01.03.2019 um 10:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:
.....
c) I recommend doing this, I tried mailing Mapbox about their license-breaking
hiding attribution but at first their responded claiming that OSBL allows that,
after quoting that part of them they went back to not responding

d) what would be our options for especially stubborn ones? DMCA filed by OSMF?

....

Just to be clear on this, the OSMF licences use of OSM data and derivates directly to the "end customer". In this case to the companies that are using a third parties infrastructure to produce rendered maps from OSM data. So while we can stipulate an ethical and moral obligation of the third party to enforce attribution requirements, legally it is an obligation of the website/service/whatever operator that is a customer of the third party.

This is btw not specific to the ODbL it is common to many open licences and is one of the things I don't particularly like as it clearly doesn't scale.



_______________________________________________
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: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by SimonPoole



Mar 1, 2019, 11:25 AM by [hidden email]:

And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the results of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 which a) states that the attribution is be default expanded, and b) that should be the case "whereever possible" which in our understanding limits the use of a default collapsed attribution to cases where it is physically impossible to show the expanded version, for example very small map snippets.  In 2014 we felt that this was acceptable (we don't have an formal statement on this iirc), and I would go out on a limb and say that it would still be considered a reasonable guideline.

This is at best outdated.


(example from Mapbox itself) on my phone (Xiaomi Redmi 4) is as follows

(a) proper attribution of OpenStreetMap is missing
(b) only Mapbox is properly credited
(c) license of data is not properly stated.
(d) there is enough space to credit source of data

Screenshot is at

I attempted to report it to Mapbox, they initially answered but stopped communicating after
I asked

So in opinion of Mapbox "click to view" attribution hiding is enough to
cover "reasonably calculated to make any Person (...)"?

question on 24th January.


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

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by SimonPoole



Mar 1, 2019, 11:48 AM by [hidden email]:


Am 01.03.2019 um 10:48 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:

.....

c) I recommend doing this, I tried mailing Mapbox about their license-breaking
hiding attribution but at first their responded claiming that OSBL allows that,
after quoting that part of them they went back to not responding

d) what would be our options for especially stubborn ones? DMCA filed by OSMF?

....

Just to be clear on this, the OSMF licences use of OSM data and derivates directly to the "end customer". In this case to the companies that are using a third parties infrastructure to produce rendered maps from OSM data. So while we can stipulate an ethical and moral obligation of the third party to enforce attribution requirements, legally it is an obligation of the website/service/whatever operator that is a customer of the third party.

Yes, I know that. But I guess that while it would have many harmful side effects
and it should be used as a last resort I guess that Mapbox would react if they customers would start
getting DMCAs.

And anyway Mapbox itself is also hosting some maps that on mobile refuse to show
proper attribution (despite that it would take less space than Mapbox logo that is
displayed), so their example pages can be DMCAed.

Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and individual
mappers are unable to do it, right?



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

Re: We need to have a conversation about attribution

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3


Am 01.03.2019 um 12:01 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny:



Mar 1, 2019, 11:25 AM by [hidden email]:

And specifically on the issue with Mapbox customers, one of the results of the 2014 discussions was this statement by Mapbox https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/lxbarth/diary/21847 which a) states that the attribution is be default expanded, and b) that should be the case "whereever possible" which in our understanding limits the use of a default collapsed attribution to cases where it is physically impossible to show the expanded version, for example very small map snippets.  In 2014 we felt that this was acceptable (we don't have an formal statement on this iirc), and I would go out on a limb and say that it would still be considered a reasonable guideline.

This is at best outdated.


We've not received any communication from Mapbox that would indicate that.

_______________________________________________
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: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Andy Mabbett
In reply to this post by SimonPoole
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 09:51, Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 01.03.2019 um 01:12 schrieb Andy Mabbett:

> > 28 characters. There are many cases, such as mobile phones, where -
> > depending on user settings - that's either going to be too small to be
> > readable, or so big it obscures what people need to see.
>
> That is a bit of a myth

It is? Really?

> it is definitely not true now days

Isn't it?

> I display the attribution text from
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/gh-pages/sources/world/OpenStreetMap-Mapnik.geojson
> (~38 characters) plus a logo plus zoom buttons at the bottom of the
> screen on essentially any Android phone I've ever tested  (which for
> example includes a 2010 HTC Desire HD) and it fits .

Well that's nice for you.

What text sizes did you test with? What visual impairments affected
your testers? Or are you just talking about your own personal
experience?

--
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: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Andy Mabbett
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 11:05, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Additional question - who can file DMCA. AFAIK only OSMF can do that and individual
> mappers are unable to do it, right?

I am the copyright owner of my edits. You are the owner of yours.

I don't recall ever giving the OSMF authority to act as my agent. Did you?

Wikipedia's advice for people whose open-licensed copyright material
is misused is pertinent:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process

[usual OSMF is not WMF caveats apply].

--
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: We need to have a conversation about attribution

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst

I very much agree.

In particular i have been pointing out the insulting and disrespectful
nature of second rate attributions - that is people producing other
attributions (most frequently for themselves) significantly more
prominently or accessible than for OSM.

There are of course corporate interests who try to milk OSM for all it's
worth while maximizing their short term ROI and not giving back any
more than they absolutely have to.  That is natural and expected but it
is up to us to define what "they absolutely have to".  If we have and
express a clear view on what we require in terms of attribution and we
are willing to actually demand this from data users this would not be
an issue.  This ultimately is an economic problem and not a legal
problem.

This however leads me to what i perceive to be the real problem here.  
The OSM community does not really speak with one voice on this matter
even if you exclude the corporate interests in your analysis.  During
the license change discussion it became clear that there is a
significant fraction of the OSM community who would have preferred it
if OSM had adopted a CC0 or similar license without either share-alike
or a hard attribution requirement.  It has been argued many times that
this would not have been a wise decision and that OSM would not be
anywhere near where it is today without a license requiring share-alike
and attribution.  The fraction of the OSM community who dislike the
share-alike and attribution requirements is much smaller today than it
was right after the license change probably.  There are quite a few
prominent community members who have expressed they changed their
opinion on this for example.  But we also have quite a few people who
are still convinced that OSM would be better off with a more liberal
license and who would gladly change it if there was a majority for it
and who in the meantime would be in favour of interpreting the
attribution and share-alike requirements as weakly as possible.

This sub-surface schism in the OSM community, which is of course further
nutured by corporate interests, is IMO the real problem and you could
see the inproper attribution from data users as merely a symptom of
this.

What OSMF activity since the license change on this front, in particular
with the community guidelines, has tried to do is to pave over this
conflict by interpreting the ODbL as leniently as possible without this
resulting in gross inconsistencies.  And in a way it is understandable
if coporate data users use this as a basis to try to take this a step
further.

The way to solve this would IMO be for the OSM community to actually in
substance accept the idea of the ODbL and the social contract among
mappers and between mappers and data users it imples as a core
component of the constitution of the project.  So far i think this can
only be said for the fundamental idea of open data in general but not
for the idea of hard attribution and share-alike requirements.

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

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