Licensing Working Group/Minutes/2018-11-08

From OpenStreetMap Foundation
< Licensing Working Group
Revision as of 00:16, 15 February 2019 by Dorothea (talk | contribs) (Created page with "'''OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group - Agenda & Minutes'''<br> '''Thursday November 8th 2018, 20:00 - 21:00 UTC'''<br> == Participants == Present: * Simon Poo...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

OpenStreetMap Foundation, Licensing Working Group - Agenda & Minutes
Thursday November 8th 2018, 20:00 - 21:00 UTC

Participants

Present:

  • Simon Poole
  • Kathleen Lu
  • Jim Vidano
  • Nuno Caldeira

Guests:

  • Frederik Ramm

Apologies: None
Minutes by: Dorothea

Administrative

Adoption of Minutes of last meeting

2018-10-11: Accepted

Previous Action Items

  • 2016-05-06 Dermot licence question wrt Ordnance Survey Northern Ireland Open Data
  • 2017-03-02 Simon determine existing obligations towards sources listed on the copyright page
  • 2017-05-04 All/Simon review import guidelines wrt licence “approval”
  • 2017-09-05 Simon ask Lawdit for quotes for registering for the additional class suggested
  • 2018-01-11 Simon fill in numbers for 2017 expenditures
  • 2018-03-08 All 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
  • 2018-04-12 Simon to contact openstreetmap.cymru. The LWG will allow use of domain name on the condition that if there's local group in the future, they will have to concede control to them and get agreement in writing, so that if domain expires it doesn't get squatted on
  • 2018-04-12 Canadian licences reminder - no Canadian Licences are currently considered by the LWG, as some members of the community seem to think
  • 2018-04-12 Simon to write short step by step guide of how to approach licencing considerations and add things to look out in the licences.
  • 2018-05-10 Jim to sign the LWG NDA
  • 2018-05-10 All to check whether in Europe a Data Transfer Agreement is necessary for controller to controller data transfers. If yes, whether it is possible to have agreement in click-through form
  • 2018-07-12 Kathleen to make changes to the draft Terms of Use
  • 2018-09-14 Simon to email OpenStreetCab
  • 2018-09-14 Open Data License - India (GODL) -Make statement, in line with other licences, to not use datasets with personal data which might be subject to privacy laws
  • 2018-09-14 Simon to create section on OSMF website for license compatibility
  • 2018-09-14 Simon to ask Grant if the OSMF address has to be changed on Domain registrations
  • 2018-09-14 Simon to contact German lawyer involved with OSM about joining the LWG, touch base with Dermot, email the OSMF mailing list and contact Mapillary
  • 2018-10-11 Simon to ask the board to contact the Working Groups about the NDA and ask people to sign up.
  • 2018-10-11 Simon to invite Frederik to the next meeting, about DMCA.
  • 2018-10-11 Simon to relay discussion about BREXIT to the board.
  • 2018-10-11 Simon to investigate about whether Wikimedia Germany has an in-house lawyer (related to the 2018-09-14 action item).
  • 2018-10-11 Jim and Kathleen to follow up on the “OSM contributor” app issue.
  • 2018-11-08 LWG to update the OSMF address on US DMCA website - should match OSMF website listing.
  • 2018-11-08 Kathleen to process the input from the meeting regarding the DMCA policy and add section to top, describing formal versus informal policy.
  • 2018-11-08 Simon to get guidance regarding information requests in UK from law enforcement.
  • 2018-11-08 Simon to ask William to provide information about the Canadian OGL variants he is interested in, in a systematic format.
  • 2018-11-08 Simon to ask OpenGeoHub to attribute us properly and perhaps make clear that they are not affiliated with OSMF and OSM, apart from using the data.

Reportage

GDPR

DMCA policy

Draft under discussion* (see open items in comments)

  • 2-3 formal requests up to now.
  • Last DMCA takedown request: took down offending data, which turned out to be legit.
  • Data reinstation is hard, once it has been reducted.

What must be identified to OSMF in order for the notification to meet formal requirements for DMCA notice? -> Changeset/object ID* Name or screenshot with circle are not sufficient

Suggestion: Multi-option entry point linking to:

Informal request Formal request
Listing order on website 1st 2nd
Required information Screenshot with circle is sufficient. Specific (like changeset ID/object IDs).
DWG response time The issue will be investigated in DWG's own time. Expeditious.
Form linking Link at the bottom of the form, to formal request, if the required information is available. Link at the bottom of the form, to informal request, if the required information is not available.

Action Items

  • LWG to update the OSMF address on US copyright office website - should match OSMF website listing.
  • Frederik (DWG) to have a look at the wiki for documentation of DWG procedure upon formal notices. Paul has made some bullet points irrespective of formal/informal notice.

Repeat infringer termination policy

US Law:
-- Mostly focuses on the format of the notices. Contents of the policy not defined, flexibility allowed.
-- Repeat infringer termination policy is required.

OSMF:
-- Final strike has to be account termination. It has been added in case the board lifts the indefinite account suspension and afterwards OSMF receives a new copyright infringement notification.
-- Terminating account would also include log-in searching (by username).
-- On multiple accounts per person: The DWG general policy of suspending accounts that circumvent blocks, is enough.

Points mentioned during discussion
-- The OSM account system is undergoing changes. There will be finer-grained methods of suspending various aspects of an account.
-- On counter notification: Under US law the person who makes the formal counter notification, submits through the formal counter notification the declaration that their material is not infringing and that they submit to the jurisdiction of the relevant US court. Then is it up to the party complaining to go to court and sue the mapper. If it comes to that, then it's a dispute between complainant and the mapper.

Action item: Kathleen to process the input from the meeting and add section to top, describing formal versus informal policy.

Next step: Document will be then sent to DWG and the board to get feedback and then the board could take this as a formal policy.

Information requests from law enforcement

Should we proactively get advice on what formally to require from such requests?

2 requests so far:

  • 1st: did not even proceed to a formal request
  • 2nd: false positive

US
-- If the company wants, they can provide information. If the request seems dubious, they can insist to get a subpoena/formal document from the government agency.
-- Many US entities say in their privacy policy that they can give information, but in practice ask law enforcement to send formal document.

  • Regulation in UK seems to be handwavey.
  • We say that we keep things private except requested by law.

Action item: Simon to get guidance regarding information requests in UK from law enforcement.

Canadian OGL variants

See request and discussion on LWG list.

General problem:
Canadian OGL variants at municipality level. They tend to reference local privacy regulation and in some cases local freedom of information acts. We cannot make a blank statement that covers all of them.

Request to make statement on two such licences.

  • Both have the issue that they reference local freedom of information acts. There might have been a ruling that these licences are not considered open. Doesn't bind us. Judgement call.
  • In addition to these 2, the person had a long list of similar ones.

Action item: Simon to ask William to provide information in systematic format.

Jim had to leave the meeting.

Trademark misuse by OpenGeoHub

See http://opengeohub.org/pre-release-landgis

Issues

  • Lack of clear attribution.
  • Weird "search OSM" in search box which -both from attribution and trademark standpoint- is confusing.

Just the comparison "making OSM for land data" under US law would not be considered trademark infringement, but the other pieces could cause confusion.

Action item: Simon to ask them to attribute us properly and perhaps make clear that they are not affiliated with OSMF and OSM, apart from using the data.

Guidance on small static map images

For example Facebook.

  • Attribution specifically for Facebook will be discussed next time.
  • Windows Facebook app attributes OSM data with HERE logo.

Suggestion:
Provide clear guidance about whether we require attribution in static snippets and where we draw the line. Issue will be discussed next time.

Any Other Business

Introduction of Nuno Caldeira

Nuno joined the LWG

  • 7 years contributor.
  • Interested in OSM being properly attributed by developers and companies.

Discussion about the balance of requesting attribution and not making difficult for suppliers to switch

Some points mentioned

  • Suppliers might be bound by contracts to attribute other map providers, even if they no longer use their data.
  • Bing maps: attribution changes depending on where you are.
  • Apple: attribution has improved.
  • End users of aggregated data have to provide the user interface elements and turn them on so that attribution is proper.

Next Meeting

December 14th 2018 20:00 UTC on Mumble


Acronyms

* = Google document