The landing page has over a dozen demos and renders using OpenStreetMap data, but I see not a single attribution statement anywhere until I open an interactive map.
OSM’s attribution is non-negotiable. It’s part of the Open Database Licence and also the Contributor Terms under which individual mappers agree that the OSM Foundation can sublicense their work. There is no legal way around it save for contacting each individual mapper for permission… which is clearly impractical.
By contrast, Mapbox ask for a credit as part of a commercial agreement, which by definition can be negotiated away. I guarantee if you call up Mapbox and offer them enough money, they’ll flex on their logo requirement. There is simply no legal way to do that with OSM.
Is that really the way it is? No way for law to prevail, the one with more money always wins? What about individuals (!) winning cases against huge corporations, which comes up in the news periodically?
It comes up in the news precisely because it's such an unusual occurrence. Lawfare by attrition is an extremely common tactic. Having more resources than your opponent can massively tilt the scales in your favor.
It's a while since I've used Mapbox but they were very strict and diligent about including OSM attribution back when I was building apps with it (2018). Have they really changed that drastically?
I mean... yes. There's plenty of bad unattributed journalism out there that don't do this of course, but... attribution has been a standard of good journalism for many years before the internet existed. This is not some new obscure requirement.
That is of course more about journalistic standards and good practice. In terms of the law, IANAL but I don't think attribution is strictly required for Fair Use usage (e.g. reportage). Only for functional usage (e.g. providing maps to be used as maps).
Agree, but an interesting point being made here is that as we continue to add more layers of separately-attributable infrastructure the attributions get quite unwieldy.
I don't have a conclusion from this, and if you're going to use something that requires attribution you should attribute. Maybe we just need better ways of giving that attribution. It's certainly easier in an interactive medium, with hyperlinks and collapsable sections than on paper.
Well, even in hypotheticals, I'm not sure how many cases are likely to go beyond 3 layers. And that's just for journalism.
For practical functional applications, 3 layers seems high, and potentially a sign of over-engineering.
To get a little more technical about our hypothetical:
- I've used Mapbox in the past, and they included (at the time) a succint dual-attribution overlay for themselves and OSM as part of their APIs. It was well-designed and baked in (nothing for me to do).
- If I were to then take my own application and offer it as a service for others to embed:
1. There's a strong likelihood I'm offering a commercial service so attribution may not be required for my layer (provided service-charges covering white-labelling)
2. If I am requiring attribution, it might make sense for me to invest in direct OSM usage & cut out the Mapbox middleman.
3. If not, it certainly seems like my added layer would be the absolute extreme (and baking in a well-made 3-component attribution would be challenging but not insurmountable).
>Other than Your Content (as defined below), all Content displayed on the site or accessible through the Services, including text, images, maps, software or source code, are the property of Felt and/or third parties and are protected by United States and international intellectual property laws. Logos and product names appearing on or in connection with the Services are proprietary to Felt or our licensors. You may not remove any proprietary notices or product identification labels from the Services.
Even renders and pictures require attribution.