Hello! I'll try to be brief and explain the main problems that exist with OSM's way of handling lack of (proper) attribution.
According to the wiki page[0]: > Our requested attribution is "© OpenStreetMap contributors". > You must also make it clear that the data is available under the Open > Database Licence. This can be achieved by providing a "License" or "Terms" > link which links to www.openstreetmap.org/copyright or > www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl. > > This credit needs to appear in a place reasonable to the medium you are > utilising. In other words, you should expect to credit OpenStreetMap in the > same way and with the same prominence as would be expected by any other map > supplier. Therefore: > - For a browsable electronic map (e.g. embedded in a web page or mobile > phone application), the credit should appear in the corner of the map, as > commonly seen with map APIs/libraries such as Google Maps. > - For a printed map, the credit should appear beside the map if that is > where other such credits appear, and/or in the "acknowledgements" section of > the publication (often at the start of a book or magazine). Now, let's take a look at a few projects that use OSM and don't abide by our own guidelines: Facebook: I've seen some complaints over the course of the last year regarding lack of attribution from the company. I decided to take a look myself this year and was surprised, they actually attribute OpenStreetMap, but not in the way described in the wiki page. On desktop, there's an information button on the bottom-right corner of the map, where the attribution should be, and when you click it there's the attribution text. Note that the icon is barely visible and I presume most people simply ignore it because it's barely noticeable[1]. You may think "well, it's fine". Except it's not. On the mobile version of the Facebook page, there's no attribution at all, simply a map. And worse, it redirects to Google Maps when you click on it. I brought this issue to the IRC channel #osm on OFTC and I was shocked at the attitude of some members that "it was fine" and that Facebook's attribution cannot be considered a case of "no attribution". I disagree. If this is the position of the majority of the OSM Foundation and members of the project, we have a problem, and I'll explain below. Honestly, it seems to me that because Facebook is a sponsor of the project, they can do attribution in whichever way they'd like to, or even remove attribution, something like "I pay for this project so its rules doesn't apply to me". And from what I've gathered by my own research, it looks like the OSMF doesn't even care about Facebook's lack of proper attribution. Moovit: The Moovit web app[2] on desktop has the correct attribution, there's a small text box on the bottom-left corner including the attribution text "(C) OpenStreetMap contributors". However, in their mobile app, the attribution is hidden under 2-3 windows, requiring too much user input to learn where the map and its data come from. This would be okay for any other project, but it doesn't follow the guidelines written on the wiki. Once again I brought this issue to the IRC channel on OFTC, and I learned that the OSMF had already contacted Moovit to fix their attribution. If I'm not mistaken, once again my message was met with "hiding attribution is not a case of no attribution". I've read the LWG meeting minutes from both February 13 and March 12 this year and one particular topic caught my eye: > 1-user interaction: suggestion from a company to have a side swipe for this, > as this is what users are expecting. Maybe add a note to that effect. Once again, contradicting the attribution guidelines as stated in the wiki. I'd like to point out, why are the members of both the Foundation and the OSM project being so passive about not having proper attribution from projects? I've read on the IRC chat something on the lines of "we're open data, we're not like google so we shouldn't care that much about attribution". This is wrong. Take a look at the most common licenses used for open source software; they require proper attribution. Proprietary software isn't that much different, when you install it, you need to accept a Terms of Service, End User License Agreement or similar legal document. Take a look at Google, if you use their Maps library or data, you NEED to attribute it. Why does OpenStreetMap have to be different? When you decide to use it for a project, you're agreeing to the license terms, and you're expected to give proper credits to the project, as required by the license. This is a big deal. Part of the reason the myth that open source licenses aren't legally binding is because people simply ignore their product's license violations. Whenever someone violates the license of a software, the company sues the person that violated the license. The only difference here is that the user/developer violating the license should be contacted first, then legal actions should take place. A few weeks ago it was featured in the weeklyOSM website an initiative by the OpenStreetMap France group, #AttributionIsNotOptional[3], and it was met with mixed reactions. Most of the websites affected by the "attribution tile" rushed to fix the lack of attribution. This is a great idea and is definitely better than pursuing legal action against a company or developer. Not a TL;DR, but I think OSM should already have an attribution policy, and it shouldn't be more flexible or relaxed than Google's. Initiatives like #AttributionIsNotOptional could help increase the attribution rate, and they don't drive away people from using OpenStreetMap. [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F [1] https://imgur.com/BeJTHWy [2] https://moovitapp.com [3] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2020-March/084299.html _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
