| Why ask? An example was pointed out in this thread you started: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/what-you-think-about-i... There are probably more spiders configured to do this. > (BTW, just marking something as copyrighted does not make it copyrighted) For OpenStreetMap, it means that at the very least the Licensing Working Group should have a look. When you combine a copyright claim with directly using a third-party API with an API-key without clearance from the owner, doubly so. This was already pointed out to you in that thread. Currently, only spiders which directly use the websites and domains of the shop chain (or its owner) are cleared for use. Take heed of what Andy Townsend from OpenStreetMap's Data Working Group wrote: > OSM has traditionally avoided situations where it could be legally challenged by people with more money to pay lawyers than we have, even if, in a fair and balanced process OSM might actually be in the right; for the simple reason being that any legal cost could far outweigh other costs of runnng the project. You are a senior mapper in our project. You know this. |
Because I wanted to know is there any other known case.
> For OpenStreetMap, it means that at the very least the Licensing Working Group should have a look.
and they were asked about first-party sources, that is why I am looking through ATP to check whether specific spiders are using only first party-sources or not
> Currently, only spiders which directly use the websites and domains of the shop chain (or its owner) are cleared for use.
AFAIK this is not accurate - for example if they would host their data at github pages website without custom domain it does not change things