Talk:Lacking proper attribution

Software description pages

Several of the links are to software description pages such as [1]. Are these about the software described there or about the description page itself? I'm asking because pages like this aren't "lacking proper attribution" if the software itself contains license information. --Tordanik 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

They are lacking proper attribution, at least for the screenshot of the software, as there is a map derived from OSM data in the picture. Regarding all other software license stuff, it would be a good ides to show the license during installation, then the user can't say he did not read the license. TobiBS 16:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the screenshots on pages otherwise describing the software: [2]. Alv 15:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But the software is nothing else then a viewer for the data, therefore the map is the main part of this picture, not vice versa. The picture without the map would be nothing else then some buttons. Read [3] or [4], as well as [5] for further information. TobiBS 17:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As most of these application descriptions - for example the one I linked to - are hosted on US servers, I expect that US law, rather than German law, is relevant here. This means that the screenshots are perhaps covered by "fair use". The English (language) Wikipedia, for example, accepts screenshots of proprietary software based on the fair use principle. --Tordanik 19:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert in common law copyright questions, but I would argue that fair use is only appicable for free software under at least a similar license as OSM is. But for applications that are advertised commercially, where money is made from the main fact that the map can be displayed, I don't see the fair use. Beside that, the article about fair use states that you still have to quote what you source is. Therefore I think it is OK to leave the license, but you have to state the source. If there are any misunderstandings, don't hesitate to correct me. TobiBS 09:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The license of the software has nothing to with what is fair use. The linked-to criteria are evaluated against the presentation relative to the description page. Alv 08:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Not directly, that's correct, but you have to see for what purpose the picture is used, see item 1 of fair use in Wikipedia: "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;". Therefore it makes a big difference if you want to earn money with the work of others, or if you are only sharing a free method of accessing data and show one example on your site.

But beside all that, even if it is fair use, you have to name the original author, fair use is not public domain, or do I miss anything here? This was my main point, that you still have to name the author (but maybe not the license), if it is fair use. --TobiBS 09:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use is one of limitations/exceptions to copyright. Note for example "reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright". So in cases where fair use applies it is not necessary to follow licence of material to publish it legally (dislaimer: not a lawyer) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Linking offwiki to pages with more detail

Is anybody opposed to linking to https://github.com/matkoniecz/illegal-use-of-OpenStreetMap/blob/master/MAPS.ME/MAPS.ME.md or https://github.com/matkoniecz/illegal-use-of-OpenStreetMap/blob/master/Moovit/Moovit.md where I document this case with more details? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of license and author columns

I see the table of websites lacking of proper attribution that has two columns:

• Authors
• License

And the proper attribution should be a link to the copyright page - https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright on the "© OpenStreetMap contributors" phrase. Taking the attribution way into account, what does it mean Authors and License? AngocA (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

"License" - license is mentioned or linked, "Authors" -OpenStreetMap contributors are credited? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

But technically, the license is never mentioned (ODbL). I agree that this is what is says at: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en

• "Provide credit to OpenStreetMap by displaying our copyright notice."
• "Make clear that the data is available under the Open Database License."

But in this page it does not explain explicitly each of these elements: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guidelines#Interactive_maps being interactive maps the most popular use of OSM.

Instead, I agree with the authors, but that column name should be changed to something like "Contributors", I think.

Finally, I would propose the column names like: "contributors attribution" (author) and "copyright link" (license). AngocA (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It does not have to be a copyright link, especially in case of print or display-only screen. In such cases "Map data from OpenStreetMap, ODBL license" should also fulfil attribution requirements ()not a lawyer disclaimer etc) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to split into online cases and ones at some location

Anyone can check website content (sometimes may require minor tricks like VPN access) but to check for example physical map at specific location or map within a train run by specific company things are far tricker.

I propose to split list to make reviewing it easier and move "Can not be checked online" to a separate list.

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Discgolf case

https://discgolf-altenau.de/index.php/unser-parcours/ - is it really qualifying? Note https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines/Substantial_-_Guideline ("up to 1,000 inhabitants" is one big loophole, but "Less than 100 Features" makes sense and seems to apply here... @Ogmios: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:54, 4 December 2023 (UTC)