OpenStreetMap
In this article,
http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2014/01/22/elections-europeennes-allemagne-contrecoups-immigration_n_4637378.html?1390379490
you find at bottom a serie of 19 images illustrating the text, as usual in this online newspaper. But the first one, although coming from the OpenStreetMap GPX dump, is attributed “Flickr:Eric Fischer”.
Only if you click on “Eric Fischer”, you find the original picture where OSM is mentionned:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24431382@N03/8033247558
What is the license of the GPX dump, cc-by-sa2.0 ? Odbl ? Is it legal to create, use and publish pictures without the original attribution ?
Why this wiki page says nothing about the license:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Planet.gpx
Discussion
Comment from mcld on 22 January 2014 at 17:45
I wondered about this too recently. I’m pretty sure that the GPX dump must be ODbL too (since OSM users simply agree that all the data they upload will be ODbL), and therefore implies exactly the same attribution requirements as the OSM “main” data.
However, please note that the OSM ODbL requires Eric Fischer to credit OSM, but it does not require him to require the Huffington Post to credit OSM! This may seem strange, and some people may not like this. But think of it this way: OSM requires that we credit OSM when we make things out of the data (“produced works”), but OSM does not in general want to control what licence we apply to these produced works. If the OSM requirement was strictly inherited all the way down the chain, it would prevent people from (for example) licensing their produced works under the WTFPL, because it’s not possible to say “do anything you like with my image” at the same time as “you must always credit OSM if you do something with my image”.
It’s a bit like the difference between CC-BY and CC-BY-SA. When you release something under CC-BY, this means that people who remix you have to credit you, but it doesn’t mean they have to put any particular requirements on people who remix them. (For that, you would use CC-BY-SA.)
Comment from aseerel4c26 on 26 February 2014 at 22:23
@mcld: not really - in both cases. But I am too lazy to look it up in the license terms now. For a produced work you need to use a license which ensures that OSM is properly credited. Fot this reason releasing a produced work under WTFPL is not possible. You mention yourself that it is contradictory…