The point that tends to get missed in these discussions, and I note that I’m the broken record here too, is that we want our data to be as unencumbered as possible so that our data consumers can use it with a high degree of certainty that this will not cause them trouble.
The most likely scenario that not being squeaky clean leads to is a sales person from your fav geo data provider whispering in their targets ear “you know that all this (points to a trap street or whatever) is copied from us”, not legal action. Given that the OSM project really only makes sense if our data is actually reused, creating a situation in which we are dropped like a hot potato is just really not a good idea.
And while copyright and similar statutes are the most popular ways of protecting a companies intangible assets, they are by far not the only instruments that can be used in competitive situations.
Southeast Asia. Google Maps is very popular there. In the past, I’ve sometimes struggled to convince even open-source enthusiasts from the region that open map data is a worthwhile endeavor compared to staying within the Google Maps ecosystem.
Just to be clear, I’m not referring to fair use here. This is about the merger doctrine and perhaps the threshold of originality. Though the merger doctrine also comes from the American legal system, OSM apparently relies on it very heavily. If not for these doctrines or similar, even visiting a shop in person to record its signposted address or opening hours would run afoul of the shopkeeper’s copyright!
Copying details from a copyrighted map would be far riskier because it would be harder to claim that only the underlying idea has been copied, as opposed to its creative expression in map form. Also, if a map is considered an edited compilation, then systematically copying many details from it would also be problematic.
I agree about the need to avoid contamination, although the overall message should be that it’s unnecessary to take shortcuts. There are legitimate alternatives – complementary to in-person surveys – that result in something higher in quality and better differentiated than copying from another map. If we take an overly cautious approach that stigmatizes armchair mapping, for instance, we could fall short in coverage, causing the prospective data consumer to second-guess OSM and leave us in the same position.
Neither. Individual facts are not protected (in any legal system I know of) by copyright or similar statutes and in these situations they are not a constituent element of a larger whole that would be protected by classical creative copyright, database rights or similar either. The largish exception to this are data protection statutes which in some legislation can protect data of legal entities (and which has been called on to get entries removed from OSM).
Note to Team Whatabout: yes it is possible to construct situations which run afoul of above assumptions, but there is always a lot of uninteresting grey area in such things.
I agree What Colour is not “easy to digest,” though I did find it an enjoyable read about how computer / data scientists bump up against how things are “looked at” from a legal perspective.
The example I gave about ACA’s (private, proprietary, copyrighted) routes having a small fraction of these routes “sneak into” OSM (contrasted with very public USBRs we work on together to get into OSM) was more about how when two parties (ACA and OSM) find what might be a contentious copyright dispute (OSM potentially “stealing from other maps”), the actual facts (innocent Fair Use) persuaded both parties there shouldn’t be any dispute at all. Well, without the fireworks of litigation or the forcing of data to be redacted from OSM, anyway.
As I described these “couple of routes” (pieces of the Underground Railroad and Transamerica Trail bicycle routes, ACA’s intellectual property) as “holding together the spine of the skeleton we are using to launch ACA’s public efforts at national bike routes” (building the USBRS in OSM), ACA saw the wisdom in essentially abdicating a defense of their copyright on this relatively minor amount of their property. And even justified this somewhat publicly with their “a small amount of this is bound to happen.” It was effectively seen as and agreed to be a leverage of one set of assets (likely producing less of an ACA revenue stream, as the data are in OSM) becoming another set of assets shared by the achievement of an important ACA long-term goal, the continuing development of the USBRS. (Quite successfully over the last decade or so).
It might be subtle, or complicated, or both, but it is an example of how what might be perceived as “stealing from other maps” was actually “not really (in this case), and here’s how.” And, it’s been a big “win-win” (for ACA and OSM) that we did. Apologies if it seems I’m talking this into a muddy ditch.
If you steal, make sure you’re not caught.
If you copy coordinate from somewhere and they’re wrong, you’re caught.
You don’t need to go there, if one of us already went, you can crosscheck if the coordinates are right here Mapillary cookie policy use
If instead of mapillary, you have used today’s facebook post, we don’t need to know. Just make sure there’s no mistake that could trace back to the source.
This is a completely irresponsible posting. OSM is not about “we don’t need to know” and “make sure you’re not caught”. It is about not copying. Copyright infringement is still infringement even if no one sees you.
We don’t have any rights in the material you copied from, so we wouldn’t have standing to take you to court for starters. But we will remove everything that you copied and if you don’t cooperate that could well be everything.
When we’ll see 13 years of work (including street names, building numbers, and other basic stuff) being vandalized, is your post enough proof you did it? Watch 12 angry men if you haven’t already.
If the owners of the material sue osm, and you see my username editing it, I will take the full responsibility. I’m easy to find.
I don’t understand the reason for taking an adversarial stance toward fellow OSM contributors. Like any wiki-style project, we depend on an honor code and some level of trust. If you’re saying that someone should presume your innocence if they can’t prove you violated any copyright, that’s one thing. But plagiarism is unethical and this project frowns upon it, regardless of whether the contributor or project gets in trouble for it, so encouraging that behavior here is naturally going to receive pushback.
Actually, in OSM it is less destructive to be caught early.
We already had cases of data for entire cities being eradicated and deleted because some silly person added stolen road data. Once spotted clean revert was impossible - so also all later related honest edits were lost in this area.
The contributor terms assume good faith and the overwhelming majority of contributions are made on that founding, but which edits to OSM data are retained and distributed is entirely elective.
If somebody calls their own contributions in to doubt and violates that assumption of good faith, then there is no need for longish investigations or a need to prove anything, then we can and should simply stop distributing those contributions. This is different than a mapper being reported were fairness dictates that the facts are investigated as far as possible before action, if necessary, is taken.
