Fwd: [OSM-talk] copyright problem with data copied from a map

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Hi, I forward this question from michel in talk:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Renaud MICHEL <r.h.michel+osm@...>
Date: 2009/8/16
Subject: [OSM-talk] copyright problem with data copied from a map
To: talk@...


Hello

Two weeks ago, I found problem in Dison, Belgium, see here
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.6044&lon=5.8522&zoom=14
At that moment, the motorway had been shifted north-west by user Neo while
adding other roads.
I moved it back to correspond to GPS traces and messaged Neo about the
problem.

He did some more edits, see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Neo/edits and
that's when I realised that he was actually copying an actual map. He
actually put the bounding box of his map
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/38566375

He confirmed a week later that he was really copying a map he scanned and
loaded in JOSM (not rectifying it, so the shifted roads).
He was obviously not aware of the copyright problem as he asked me, in the
same message, if he could somehow copy the map from his tomtom.

I replied one week ago explaining why he must not do that and asking him to
remove all the edits he made based on that map, but had no more answer so
far.
So now I'm thinking about removing those edits myself, but am not sure
what's the best way to do so.

I don't know if the changeset can be reverted, as there are many of them,
and I also did some edits there (changeset #1997354 #2005715 #2046924 a
least) before knowing of the copyright problem.

Any advice?
I think I'm going to remove all this "by hand" with JOSM.
But the ways will still be present in the DB with the history. Can we do
something about this?

cheers
--
Renaud Michel

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



--
___________________

Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.)
c/o Sebastianelli
Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18

00145 Roma

Italia
N41.8739, E12.5141

tel1: +39 06.916508070
tel2: [phone]
mobil: [phone]
mk@...
http://www.koppenhoefer.com


Hinweis:
Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie
Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei
der manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien
die übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies
zu entschuldigen.

Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically
stated.
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
postmaster@...

Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the
protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read
messages sent to and from our systems.

Thank You.

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Peter Miller-7]

On 16 Aug 2009, at 23:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> Hi, I forward this question from michel in talk:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Renaud MICHEL <r.h.michel+osm@...>
> Date: 2009/8/16
> Subject: [OSM-talk] copyright problem with data copied from a map
> To: talk@...
>
>
>

snip

> I don't know if the changeset can be reverted, as there are many of  
> them,
> and I also did some edits there (changeset #1997354 #2005715  
> #2046924 a
> least) before knowing of the copyright problem.
>
> Any advice?
> I think I'm going to remove all this "by hand" with JOSM.
> But the ways will still be present in the DB with the history. Can  
> we do
> something about this?

You may wish to set up a Belgium equivalent for this page to act as a  
record of such reverts. As you can see we have been having some  
problems of our own.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log

Or.... should we have global revert page or what?



Regards,


Peter

>
> cheers
> --
> Renaud Michel
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk@...
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
> --
> ___________________
>
> Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.)
> c/o Sebastianelli
> Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18
>
> 00145 Roma
>
> Italia
> N41.8739, E12.5141
>
> tel1: +39 06.916508070
> tel2: [phone]
> mobil: [phone]
> mk@...
> http://www.koppenhoefer.com
>
>
> Hinweis:
> Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie
> Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei
> der manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien
> die übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies
> zu entschuldigen.
>
> Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not
> necessarily represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically
> stated.
> This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify
> postmaster@...
>
> Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the
> protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read
> messages sent to and from our systems.
>
> Thank You.
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@...
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/17 Peter Miller <peter.miller@...>:
> You may wish to set up a Belgium equivalent for this page to act as a
> record of such reverts. As you can see we have been having some
> problems of our own.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log

actually I just fwded. the request as noone seems to care in talk, and
I thought this might be the right page, so just not to get it
overlooked. Isn't there a "special squad team" to handle this kind of
thread?

> Or.... should we have global revert page or what?

maybe would IMHO be better, yes. Actually I don't know if there is a
simple possibility to revert a changeset for simple mappers as I (or
probably Michel) are.

regards,
Martin

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[SteveC-2]

On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2009/8/17 Peter Miller <peter.miller@...>:
>> You may wish to set up a Belgium equivalent for this page to act as a
>> record of such reverts. As you can see we have been having some
>> problems of our own.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log
>
> actually I just fwded. the request as noone seems to care in talk

I wouldn't say they don't care it's just it's a super busy list.

Yours &c.

Steve


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Andy Allan-2]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Peter Miller<peter.miller@...> wrote:

> Or.... should we have global revert page or what?

So long as people start calling it "plastering over the problem" and
not "reverting", since it's not actually reverting in any sensible
meaning of the word. Calling it "reverting" perpetuates the myth that
it's either simple or foolproof, and it's neither.

Anyway, the FAQ says that copyright violations should go to the
foundation (see my post to the talk ML), which is good and proper and
allows them to keep records of these incidents in case it comes up
later in court. Vandalism/mistakes etc is something we can deal with
ourselves, for the most part, without escalating to the Data WG.

Cheers,
Andy

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Peter Miller-7]

On 17 Aug 2009, at 19:13, SteveC wrote:

>
> On 17 Aug 2009, at 11:13, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/17 Peter Miller <peter.miller@...>:
>>> You may wish to set up a Belgium equivalent for this page to act  
>>> as a
>>> record of such reverts. As you can see we have been having some
>>> problems of our own.
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GB_revert_request_log
>>
>> actually I just fwded. the request as noone seems to care in talk
>
> I wouldn't say they don't care it's just it's a super busy list.

Should we have a talk-vandalism list then?

I am really conscious that the Lian123 'work' in Esssex/London/Kent/
Medway/Spain (Benidorm) and Germany that is listed on the 'GB-revert'  
page has compromised some very good work by other people and much of  
it is just sitting there waiting for tools good enough to dig it out  
again or at least point out which features have been subsequently  
edited without removing all the adjustments made by Liam123.

This is certainly not the list for the discussion, nor it talk-gb and  
'talk' itself is far to busy to have much sustained concentration on  
any one subject.

Andy mentions that copyright violation needs to go to the Data Working  
Group. Why? Sure the foundation needs a log of action of copyright  
violations, but I don't see why the requested reverts, or 'plastering  
over the cracks' can't be put onto a public list by a concerned member  
of the public and is then acted on by a suitably confident member of  
the community. The foundation then steps back and only gets directly  
involved in the bigger more problematic cases.

A talk vandalism list would also give much more visibility to the work  
that the Data Working Group is doing and indeed be that record that  
the foundation needs to prove that it responds to copyright violation.


Regards,




Peter

>
> Yours &c.
>
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@...
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

On 18/08/09 09:27, Peter Miller wrote:

> Andy mentions that copyright violation needs to go to the Data Working
> Group. Why? Sure the foundation needs a log of action of copyright
> violations, but I don't see why the requested reverts, or 'plastering
> over the cracks' can't be put onto a public list by a concerned member
> of the public and is then acted on by a suitably confident member of
> the community. The foundation then steps back and only gets directly
> involved in the bigger more problematic cases.

The Data Working Group can do things, like sending email direct to the
user from somebody "official" (ie the foundation) that ordinary users
are not able to do. Hopefully people will be more likely to respond to
such communication to explain what they are doing which can help
determine whether there is in fact a problem with the data.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (tom@...)
http://www.compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Peter Miller-7]

On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:30, Tom Hughes wrote:

> On 18/08/09 09:27, Peter Miller wrote:
>
>> Andy mentions that copyright violation needs to go to the Data  
>> Working
>> Group. Why? Sure the foundation needs a log of action of copyright
>> violations, but I don't see why the requested reverts, or 'plastering
>> over the cracks' can't be put onto a public list by a concerned  
>> member
>> of the public and is then acted on by a suitably confident member of
>> the community. The foundation then steps back and only gets directly
>> involved in the bigger more problematic cases.
>
> The Data Working Group can do things, like sending email direct to the
> user from somebody "official" (ie the foundation) that ordinary users
> are not able to do. Hopefully people will be more likely to respond to
> such communication to explain what they are doing which can help
> determine whether there is in fact a problem with the data.

But surely that is no reason not to set up community structures to  
deal with local vandalism at a local level where that can be achieved  
and to only escalate the most serious instances to the working group.  
As the OSM Dataset gets more complete and more accurate vandalism is  
going to become more of an issue and disruptive to the integrity of  
the project even if it is minor in nature, let alone what a serious  
vandal could do.

My immediate concern of course is Liam123 and his 'contributions' in  
the UK and elsewhere. I really don't believe that an official email to  
him will do any good and anyway it won't resolve the edits he has  
already made - the damage done to date mainly still exists and we need  
a lot of new technology to deal with it and I don't hear people  
talking about solutions.

Surely an talk-vandalism email list is the way to get some energy into  
this process in an inclusive sort of way.



Regards,


Peter

>
> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes (tom@...)
> http://www.compton.nu/
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@...
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Dave Stubbs-3]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Peter Miller<peter.miller@...> wrote:

>
> On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:30, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 18/08/09 09:27, Peter Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Andy mentions that copyright violation needs to go to the Data
>>> Working
>>> Group. Why? Sure the foundation needs a log of action of copyright
>>> violations, but I don't see why the requested reverts, or 'plastering
>>> over the cracks' can't be put onto a public list by a concerned
>>> member
>>> of the public and is then acted on by a suitably confident member of
>>> the community. The foundation then steps back and only gets directly
>>> involved in the bigger more problematic cases.
>>
>> The Data Working Group can do things, like sending email direct to the
>> user from somebody "official" (ie the foundation) that ordinary users
>> are not able to do. Hopefully people will be more likely to respond to
>> such communication to explain what they are doing which can help
>> determine whether there is in fact a problem with the data.
>
> But surely that is no reason not to set up community structures to
> deal with local vandalism at a local level where that can be achieved
> and to only escalate the most serious instances to the working group.

Sure, and that's the explicit requirement before forwarding vandalism cases.

Most of the people in this conversation were talking about the OP
which was not vandalism -- it was copyright infringement.
These are not the same things.

Dave

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

On 18/08/09 11:18, Peter Miller wrote:

>
> On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:30, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 18/08/09 09:27, Peter Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Andy mentions that copyright violation needs to go to the Data
>>> Working
>>> Group. Why? Sure the foundation needs a log of action of copyright
>>> violations, but I don't see why the requested reverts, or 'plastering
>>> over the cracks' can't be put onto a public list by a concerned
>>> member
>>> of the public and is then acted on by a suitably confident member of
>>> the community. The foundation then steps back and only gets directly
>>> involved in the bigger more problematic cases.
>>
>> The Data Working Group can do things, like sending email direct to the
>> user from somebody "official" (ie the foundation) that ordinary users
>> are not able to do. Hopefully people will be more likely to respond to
>> such communication to explain what they are doing which can help
>> determine whether there is in fact a problem with the data.
>
> But surely that is no reason not to set up community structures to
> deal with local vandalism at a local level where that can be achieved
> and to only escalate the most serious instances to the working group.
> As the OSM Dataset gets more complete and more accurate vandalism is
> going to become more of an issue and disruptive to the integrity of
> the project even if it is minor in nature, let alone what a serious
> vandal could do.

We were talking about copyright infringement, not vandalism. That
requires trying to talk to the user to find out where the data is coming
from and why they believe it is OK to use.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (tom@...)
http://www.compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

[Peter Miller-7]

On 18 Aug 2009, at 11:35, Dave Stubbs wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Peter Miller<peter.miller@...
> > wrote:
>>
>> On 18 Aug 2009, at 10:30, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/08/09 09:27, Peter Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy mentions that copyright violation needs to go to the Data
>>>> Working
>>>> Group. Why? Sure the foundation needs a log of action of copyright
>>>> violations, but I don't see why the requested reverts, or  
>>>> 'plastering
>>>> over the cracks' can't be put onto a public list by a concerned
>>>> member
>>>> of the public and is then acted on by a suitably confident member  
>>>> of
>>>> the community. The foundation then steps back and only gets  
>>>> directly
>>>> involved in the bigger more problematic cases.
>>>
>>> The Data Working Group can do things, like sending email direct to  
>>> the
>>> user from somebody "official" (ie the foundation) that ordinary  
>>> users
>>> are not able to do. Hopefully people will be more likely to  
>>> respond to
>>> such communication to explain what they are doing which can help
>>> determine whether there is in fact a problem with the data.
>>
>> But surely that is no reason not to set up community structures to
>> deal with local vandalism at a local level where that can be achieved
>> and to only escalate the most serious instances to the working group.
>
> Sure, and that's the explicit requirement before forwarding  
> vandalism cases.
>
> Most of the people in this conversation were talking about the OP
> which was not vandalism -- it was copyright infringement.
> These are not the same things.

I understand.  Lets keep this thread to copyright and pick up graffiti  
issues somewhere else

Fyi, If have given the vandalism page[1] a bit of a spring-clean. I  
have tried to reflect the intention of the wiki page and also this  
conversation but in a clearer way. Feel free to edit the page if I  
have missed something.

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Vandalism


Regards,


Peter


>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@...
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@...
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk