Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2022-04-14
OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group (LWG) - Agenda & Minutes
14 April 2022, 18:30 UTC
- Kathleen Lu (Chairing)
- Guillaume Rischard (OSMF board)
- Simon Hughes
- Tom Hummel
- Dermot McNally
Adoption of past minutes
- 2022-03-17 Accepted
Previous action items
- 2017-03-02 Simon Poole to determine existing obligations towards sources listed on the copyright page.
- 2017-05-04 All/Simon Poole to review import guidelines with regards to licence “approval”.
- 2018-03-08 All to look at the Working Groups collecting personal information.
- 2018-04-12 LWG to follow-up on the iD editor, as the number of changesets is now included on the changeset comments thread.
- 2019-01-10 Simon Poole to draft text to developers of apps related to geo/mapping, having OSM in their names or using variations of our logo.
- 2019-02-14 Simon Poole to summarise the advice regarding information requests from law enforcement and send it around.
- 2019-12-12 Simon Poole to discuss trademark registration strategy (more countries, additional classes, etc) with lawdit
- 2020-01-09 Simon Poole to include text about downstream produced works to the FAQ.
- 2020-03-12 Simon Poole to send to Mateusz the link with the research by Kathleen Lu on attribution on various apps.
- 2020-09-10 Simon Poole to set-up call with Kathleen Lu and our UK lawyer about trademarks.
- 2020-10-08 Simon Poole and Guillaume Rischard to look at the translation issue of the copyright policy page.
- 2020-10-08 Simon Poole to send his Moovit contact to Guillaume Rischard.
- 2020-10-08 Simon Poole to send a summary of which action items need to be done.
- 2021-01-14 Guillaume Rischard to report on Board status re identification of outside counsel
- 2021-02-11 Kathleen Lu to check LWG-specific membership requirements on the OSMF website and Conflict of Interest policy and provide to Dorothea any updates for the website.
- 2021-03-11 Guillaume Rischard to sort out various email issues -
Making sure Dermot McNally is on the main legal mailing issue, making sure everyone is getting OTRS email notifications for the legal queue.
- 2021-07-08 Guillaume Rischard to meet with Dermot McNally about using OTRS.
- 2021-07-08 LWG members to provide comment on the HOT draft trademark agreement on the next meeting.
2021-07-08 Tom Hummel to reply to the gdpr_openstreepmap.org_tsfkd@ email.
- 2021-07-08 Jim Vidano to look at next steps for Opensnowmap.org paperwork after the trademark request has been approved by the board.
- 2021-07-08 Dermot McNally to ask Tobias for expected outcome regarding the request for change of the text of the standard tile license.
- 2021-08-12 Tom Hummel to suggest text to be published regarding OSMF's legitimate interest in processing personal data.
- 2021-08-12 Dermot McNally to reply to Tobias about simplifying the text of the tile licence.
- 2021-08-12 Dermot McNally to make the pull request on Github openstreemap-website regarding attribution requirements for OSMF tiles
- 2021-08-12 Dermot McNally to communicate back to contacts regarding Australian data attribution and suggest filling the waiver template.
- 2021-08-12 LWG to identify OSMF legal texts that might be needed under German law to be in German.
- 2021-09-09 Jim Vidano to ask Simon Poole whether he has previous emails contacting companies that were not displaying attribution.
- 2021-09-09 Guillaume Rischard to check past emails (e.g. last year ones related to case in Germany where they settled in court) for any sent to companies not complying with attribution requirements and to send what he finds, including links to the Github repositories with the lists of not complying organisations, to the Signal group.
- 2021-09-09 Jim Vidano to have create a draft template email for the community to contact organisations regarding non compliance with the attribution guidelines
- 2021-09-09 Dermot McNally to reply to Jean-Marc Liotier (board of directors) with the LWG decision to create a template email for minor cases of non-compliance with the attribution guidelines available to the community and the LWG to directly contact bigger companies.
- 2022-01-13 Simon Hughes to download a copy of the Copyright FAQ page and mark anything that is not matching the attribution guidelines or is confusing and circulate that to the LWG.
2022-01-13 Kathleen Lu to draft a sentence to update the attribution in videos section of the attribution guidelines and ask the board to approve in a circular.
- 2022-02-17 The LWG to add comments to the draft template email by Dermot that the community will be able to send to people who have used OSM data without attribution (Belgian love letter).
- 2022-02-17 Dermot McNally to have another look at the draft template email (Belgian love letter).
- 2022-02-17 Guillaume Rischard to mention 1) the changes to the copyright page to the board, in case there are any disagreements, 2) that a budget might be requested for translations.
- 2022-02-17 Dermot McNally to do the pull request for the changes to the copyright page.
2022-02-17 The LWG to make edits to the Copyright FAQ page and mark anything that is not matching the attribution guidelines or is confusing and circulate that internally.(Taken-up by Simon Hughes)
- 2022-02-17 Kathleen Lu to write back to Tobias Knerr (board) regarding the board's enquiry about the community's specific suggestion for more prominent attribution (see e.g. the "Made with OpenStreetMap" thread on osmf-talk – as well as these image suggestions: https://twitter.com/HeikkiVesanto/status/1485939523469070340/photo/1)
- 2022-02-17 Tom Hummel to check with Falk Zscheile from FOSSGIS (German Local Chapter) if the recent case about a printed map in Germany without attribution is on their radar. If not, the LWG will use Dermot's "love letter".
2022-03-17 Dorothea to add Simon Hughes to the LWG mailing list and to the LWG chat channel on Signal.
- 2022-03-17 Tom Hummel to contact OpenSenseMap.org
- 2022-03-17 Simon Hughes to create a draft so that the Copyright FAQ page content matches that of the Attribution guidelines.
- 2022-03-17 Simon Hughes to ask a member of his team to monitor the OSM trademark notices and set an automatic email filter for forwarding the notices.
New action items
- Simon Hughes to suggest a new structure of the Copyright FAQ page and crosslink to relevant sections of the Attribution guidelines.
- Guillaume Rischard to ask Tom Hughes to see how many translations of the Copyright and Copyright FAQ page are live.
- Tom Hummel to inform the community member who reported the issue about the printed map in Germany without attribution and ask them to report back if the issue persists.
- Tom Hummel to 1) remind email sender about produced work and attribution, 2) point them to the collective database guideline and say that depending on how you structure your proposal, until it is about to be built, a proposed cycleway may be a different primary feature, 3) suggest consult with attorney, 4) Note on features about to be built: there will be an obligation to release data in a manner that is eligible to be imported into OSM at that time.
- Guillaume Rischard to talk to Grant Slater (Senior Site Reliability Engineer) about cutting tile access to Impresa Italia.
- Guillaume Rischard to update agenda with Navionics (Garmin) success.
Needed: Update to Copyright FAQ page to match new attribution guidelines
|There is a need to update the Copyright FAQ page to match the Attribution guidelines.
Previous LWG minutes
Simon Hughes has distributed to LWG a draft with suggested changes to the Copyright FAQ page.
- Cross-link the Copyright FAQ page to Attribution guidelines sections. E.g. add a new question about produced works and point to related section of the attribution guidelines.
- Reorder the questions and put the most relevant ones on top. For example, ccbysa deprecated 10 years ago.
- Group questions based on topics.
Translations of the Copyright and Copyright FAQ pages
- Budget for translations: LWG has not asked for that yet.
- some information in translations is outdated.
- translation of legal terms.
- Priority: Copyright page, next the FAQ page.
- Translations at https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:OpenStreetMap
- There are volunteers translators - some who translate in coordination with the Communication Working Group (CWG).
- Update only the pages which have already been translated by volunteers.
Suggestions for additional translations
- Attribution guidelines. Comment that tt would be too much work.
- Budget: We don't have the budget for additional translations
- Resources needed: Probably managing additional translations will be a lot of work.
Simon Hughes offered to use TomTom's translation service (mostly focused on French and German).
Action item: Guillaume to ask Tom Hughes to see how many translations of the Copyright and Copyright FAQ page are live.
OpenSenseMap – any updates?
|About trademark violation by OpenSenseMap - (trademark policy).
- Disclaimer preferably to be added on the about page https://www.opensensemap.org/about or main page (they have 2 pop-up boxes with information).
- Priority: not urgent.
- OpenHistoricalMap put disclaimer on their front page.
They use OSM on their main page and without a disclaimer it looks like OSMF endorses it.
Printed map in Germany without attribution
|A community member has identified printed maps based on OSM in their home town without attribution. The company claim the copyright to themselves and forbid any usage of the material.
Previous LWG minutes:
LWG letter has been sent to the company.
Action item: Tom Hummel to inform the community member who reported the issue about the printed map in Germany without attribution and ask them to report back if the issue persists.
Nothing reported by Simon Hughes.
Reports in OTRS
Action item: Guillaume to look at the following OTRS tickets:
- Ticket#2021081210000057 - printed maps with false copyright; no response yet
- Ticket#2022011910000082 - interparcel.com
- Ticket#2022032710000125 - https://www.evri.com/find-a-parcelshop
Ticket#2022032710000125 - https://www.evri.com/find-a-parcelshop
- Hermes changed name to evri. So this is an old issue.
- Hermes did not have attribution on their English site, while they had on their German site.
- Complaint that Aberdeen city council may not be attributing correctly - https://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/news/consultation-starts-street-improvements-ashgrove-road
- Note that Aberdeen credits Ordnance Survey, so possible OS is using OSM as one of many sources and the full attribution is not getting carried through.
Ticket#2022012610000149 - https://poster.printmijnstad.nl/editor/city
|Note by Tom Hummel|
|„I understand that the refinements on the cyclepaths are a derivative database, and all the scenarios, even if they do not exist in real life, are a derivative database.“ Is that correct? I suspect so. Even a database with fictitious data should continue to benefit from database-protection, even if new IP rights arise. From a friendly exchange re: #2021090210000065 – tom|
|Suggested by Tom Hummel.|
- They plan to have hundreds of proposed new cyclepaths and some will get passed on to some agencies/construction companies.
On fictional information
- Fictional information is under collective DB guidelines and probably not the same type (depending on implementation).
- Fictional information would not be the same primary feature.
On collective and derivative databases
- Key question: is it a derivative database - which has a specific meaning under ODbL - or a collective database?
- Collective vs derivative databases: Is it the same primary feature?
Other points mentioned during discussion
- Proposed features do get mapped in OSM (e.g. highway=proposed, proposed=cycleway)
- We map proposed features mostly about to be built - not multiple proposals submitted to city councils and about to be voted.
- Nothing stops them republishing the data under ODbL.
- The LWG can't give legal advice.
- No obligation to share the data until it is about to be built - would still be a produced work.
- Options for releasing the data include CC0, ODbL.
- CC0 can be tricky with existing geometries.
- Depends on the proposal, might not be identical with road geometries.
- CC0 can be tricky with existing geometries.
Key-point: Not a derivative database until the proposed paths become built paths - then they are obliged to release the path data under ODbL or a compatible licence.
Simon Hughes signed-off 45' after start.
Action item: Tom Hummel to
- Remind email sender about produced work and attribution.
- Point them to the collective database guideline and say that depending on how you structure your proposal, until it is about to be built, a proposed cycleway may be a different primary feature.
- Suggest consult with attorney.
- Features about to be built: there will be an obligation to release data in a manner that is eligible to be imported into OSM at that time.
Impresa Italia - Missing attribution case of commercial site using our tiles
- Existed since 2009.
- Unwilling to communicate.
- If we get a complaint about OSM attribution and they use our tiles, we could cut their tile access.
- Create standard process for such tickets.
Points mentioned during discussion
- OPS have a procedure for cutting tile access.
- OPS were reluctant to cut tile access in the past, as it is manual work, but the OSMF sysadmin employee will start working soon.
- The OSMF tileserver should not be used for commercial purposes.
Options for technical responses in cases of missing attribution
- Error message.
- Custom tiles with message "you are blocked, please attribute OpenStreetMap" as the French community does with their OSM tileserver.
Action item: Guillaume Rischard to talk to Grant Slater (Senior Site Reliability Engineer) about cutting tile access to Impresa Italia.
HOT trademark agreement
Request to not minute the section, as negotiations are ongoing and summarise it as "Guillaume gave a positive update".
Dermot’s Belgian love letter
Guillaume sent letters to:
- Navionics (Garmin) and got attribution fixed.
- Luxembourg - haven't heard back.
Fixing attribution success
Action item: Guillaume Rischard to update agenda with Navionics (Garmin) success.
12 May 2022, 17:30 UTC
Meeting adjourned 62' after start.