On 5 nov. 2012, at 23:39, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with this at all. All arguments
people use in this this discussion in relation to copyright are just a
smokescreen to try to get their way.
When viewing Google StreetView you are using a
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 09:58:11AM +0100, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote:
On 5 nov. 2012, at 23:39, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:
Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with this at all. All arguments
people use in this this discussion in relation to copyright are just a
smokescreen to try
How do proponents of copying from Streetview explain the difference between
copying from satellite images and copying from Streetview? With satellite
images you copy shapes of roads, with Streetview you copy street names. The
same thing.
Janko
2012/11/6 Vladimir Vyskocil
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:14 AM, veg...@engen.priv.no wrote:
So anyone who considers adding stuff that is not 100% OK to copy is
destroying the project from within, not helping it.
Period.
A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
copyrighted derivative work just because
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 10:28:45AM +0100, Pieren wrote:
A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
copyrighted derivative work just because you see it through a
copyrighted photo. And this is true worldwide, not only in some
countries. But some people are continuing to keep
On 6 November 2012 20:28, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
copyrighted derivative work just because you see it through a
copyrighted photo.
You are continuing to misrepresent what is at issue.
1. There are licence and contractual
The difference is that for the satellite images we use we have a
statement from the corresponding companies that allows us to do so.
Yes, that's nothing 100 Lawyers looked over, but it's a permission we
got, be it from microsoft and bing, from yahoo or from others.
There is not yet anything
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote:
1. There are licence and contractual terms concerning the use of the
StreetView service.
The use of the API...
2. There is a possible interpretation of these conditions that may well open
one or more parties to legal
On 6 November 2012 09:28, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
copyrighted derivative work just because you see it through a
copyrighted photo. And this is true worldwide, not only in some
countries.
Isn't the real point that regardless
Hi everyone!
It seems that this list is magnet for very long, but sometimes useless
threads.
There are several facts people should remember before invest in this
discussion:
1. Common sensus/rule/whatever you call it in OSM is *not* touch
copyrighted stuff without clear license/permission to use
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
...Now, there are different *ongoing* legal discussions around the
world about is it legal or not copy facts from photos.
Facts are copyrightable now. Can you point some evidence or links
about what you say ?
Pieren
Nobody answered yet. How is copying from Streetview photos not the same as
copying from satellite photos? Both are photos, both show facts, both are
owned by Google.
Yet everybody agrees we shouldn't copy from satellite photos, but many
people think we can copy from Streetview.
What is the
2012/11/6 Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com:
4. Those who wish to use such services should take the perogative to seek
explicit permission to use them in the OSM context.
5. If that permission isn't obtained, we shouldn't use them.
So, which of these points do you disagree with?
Your
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the difference?
It's because on StreetView, we don't trace on the photo. Doing this
on aerial imagery is reusing the transformation process of images
rectified (including relief with DEM) and georeferenced. This is
Janko Mihelić writes:
Nobody answered yet. How is copying from Streetview photos not the same as
copying from satellite photos? Both are photos, both show facts, both are
owned by Google.
It's unlikely that factual data is copyrightable. There had been multiple
discussions in the past, along
Janko Mihelić wrote:
Nobody answered yet. How is copying from Streetview photos not the same as
copying from satellite photos? Both are photos, both show facts, both are owned
by Google.
Yet everybody agrees we shouldn't copy from satellite photos, but many people
think we can copy from
Kevin Peat writes:
On 6 November 2012 09:28, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
A public domain street sign does not become automagically a
copyrighted derivative work just because you see it through a
copyrighted photo. And this is true worldwide, not only in some
countries.
Isn't
2012/11/6 Pieren pier...@gmail.com
It's because on StreetView, we don't trace on the photo. Doing this
on aerial imagery is reusing the transformation process of images
rectified (including relief with DEM) and georeferenced. This is the
added value protected. Facts visible on aerial imagery
Janko Mihelić writes:
Yet everybody agrees we shouldn't copy from satellite photos, but many
people think we can copy from Streetview.
What is the difference?
Uh, because Ed Parsons said we could? Why is this so difficult to
understand?
Okay, so there's this legal doctrine called
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote:
Imagine if Google didn't do that, you would have to find your street amongst
billions other Streetview photos. Not possible. So you can't say you aren't
using their referencing process.
If you deduce the street position and
Pieren wrote:
Usually, in such discussion coming back and forth, this is the last
argument trying to explain how a public domain material would become
sudenly copyrightable. It's impossible.
Some of you may be aware of the problems with the 'tz' database. A commercial
company claimed
If I remember correctly, at least part of the issue stems from the EU
database directive and the sui generis right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive#Sui_generis_right
Copyright protection is not available for databases which aim to be
complete, that is where the entries are
Jérome Armau wrote:
Basically, even if the data itself is public domain, the database that contains
it may be protected under EU law - this is to protect the amount of work that
went into the data collection. The whole issue is the definition of a
substantial part of the database. Are street
Robin Paulson wrote:
2(e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access
to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to
numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data;
so checking the odd street names is OK.. but
On 5 November 2012 19:31, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Sorry, but in this case how the would they know if someone had cross
checked something against Streetview? There is NO need to make any mention
of that and yes I do cross check,
...
Perhaps they might read your email on a
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Robin Paulson ro...@bumblepuppy.org wrote:
and by the way, whoever it was using the phrase memory aid does not change
what is happening. it is copying data whatever linguistic gymnastics you go
through to try and justify it, and is thus not ok. as someone else
2012/11/5 Robin Paulson ro...@bumblepuppy.org:
let's say there are 100,000 people involved in OSM. each copies one name
from google (so, not in her/his eyes a mass download). the OSM database then
contains 100,000 pieces of data which are sourced from google. this then
does constitute a mass
of
the pictures
is not the same as copying.
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: Monday, November 05, 2012 11:20 AM
Aan: Robin Paulson
CC: OSM Talk
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
2012/11/5 Robin
Ian Sergeant wrote:
Sorry, but in this case how the would they know if someone had cross
checked something against Streetview? There is NO need to make any mention
of that and yes I do cross check,
...
Perhaps they might read your email on a public list?
And what does that prove? They
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Sorry, but in this case how the would they know if someone had cross
checked something against Streetview? There is NO need to make any mention
of that and yes I do cross check, but MORE simply to confirm that
Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Sorry, but in this case how the would they know if someone had cross
checked something against Streetview? There is NO need to make any mention
of that
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Only if they can prove that anonymous activity on one is directly related
to some identified activity on the other at an unrelated time ... I am sure
a court would only accept a proven pattern rather than a vague
On 11/5/2012 8:15 AM, Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
If they can find views (maybe even searches) for 1 or multiple areas and
correlate those with 1 or multiple changesets on OSM they have the proof
they want.
And Google could always use Photoshop to plant a few 'Easter eggs'
with fake names in
Floris Looijesteijn wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk
mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Only if they can prove that anonymous activity on one is directly related to
some identified activity on the other at an unrelated time ... I am sure a
court
After searching in taginfo, I found all these other
instances of data copied from Google, such as some data in Paris that
was tagged as coming from Google Street View (I deleted it).
Vandal !
I have contacted the Data Working Group, they ought to do a better job
deleting the data than
Hi,
I haven't read this thread in full but it has come to my attention
that people in this thread have argued that it would be acceptable to
use Google StreetView pictures when mapping.
It is not.
The legal situation may be debatable and indeed differ from country to
country but
Am 05.11.2012 16:42, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
Hi,
I haven't read this thread in full but it has come to my attention
that people in this thread have argued that it would be acceptable to
use Google StreetView pictures when mapping.
It is not.
The legal situation may be debatable and
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have explicit
permission from Google to do so.
Since this question is coming back at regular intervals since years,
did the OSMF take some actions and contact Google
Hi,
On 05.11.2012 17:04, Pieren wrote:
Since this question is coming back at regular intervals since years,
did the OSMF take some actions and contact Google to get a definitive
answer?
Not as far as I know.
Or should each individual contributor contact again Google as
in the email's copy I
Hi,
According to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation
that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously
created first work (theunderlying work).
Obviously looking at google street
Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with this at all. All arguments
people use in this this discussion in relation to copyright are just a
smokescreen to try to get their way.
When viewing Google StreetView you are using a service from Google. The
rules in relation to that, are the rules for
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Not as far as I know.
Sad that OSMF is not taking five minutes to post the question to
Google. Some contributors did it in the past.
I don't think that a personal message to one individual mapper from someone,
even if in
On 11/06/2012 12:12 AM, Pieren wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Not as far as I know.
Sad that OSMF is not taking five minutes to post the question to
Google. Some contributors did it in the past.
If it is so simple, why don't you do it
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Not as far as I know.
Sad that OSMF is not taking five minutes to post the question to
Google. Some contributors did it in the past.
I don't think that a
On 6 November 2012 00:29, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Not as far as I know.
Sad that OSMF is not taking five minutes to post the question to
On 11/06/2012 01:09 AM, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
The same is true for Microsoft and Yahoo!, in the end it boils down to
something someone at those companies said in an email to someone else.
Then ask them.
Don't spam my mailbox, spam theirs. This endless prattling is getting
nowhere.
--
---
Cartinus wrote:
The same is true for Microsoft and Yahoo!, in the end it boils down to
something someone at those companies said in an email to someone else.
Then ask them.
Don't spam my mailbox, spam theirs. This endless prattling is getting
nowhere.
You can always stop listening ...
I'm
On 4 November 2012 02:06, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 3, 2012, Ian Sergeant wrote:
On 04/11/12 07:24, Paul Johnson wrote:
Would it be acceptable to use Street View to aid your memory of local
knowledge of the ground truth? Something that's on the tip of
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com wrote:
Unless Google has actually formally given OpenStreetMap a license to
copy Street View for specific purposes, clearly stating the limits on
what is or isn't allowed to be copied, we should not be copying Google
Street
Am 04/nov/2012 um 00:48 schrieb Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com:
Unless Google has actually formally given OpenStreetMap a license to
copy Street View for specific purposes, clearly stating the limits on
what is or isn't allowed to be copied, we should not be copying Google
Street
On 04/nov/2012 00:48 , Andrew MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.com:
Unless Google has actually formally given OpenStreetMap a license to
copy Street View for specific purposes, clearly stating the limits on
what is or isn't allowed to be copied, we should not be copying Google
Andrew,
On
In my opinion, copying from Google Street View is still a legally
dubious thing to do. There is no formal licensing agreement with
Google that I know of. It is perfectly fine to capture data by taking
pictures yourself, but relying on Google Street View cars to take
those pictures is legally
On 04/11/2012 16:48, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
In my opinion, copying from Google Street View is still a legally
dubious thing to do. There is no formal licensing agreement with
Google that I know of. It is perfectly fine to capture data by taking
pictures yourself, but relying on Google Street
On 5 November 2012 07:20, Christopher Woods (IWD)
chris...@infinitus.co.uk wrote:
...
For simple pieces of factual data like that, obviously in the public domain
before Google began to compile their own imagery, my gut feeling is that
this is arguably OK to do in a pinch.
...
And my gut
On 4 November 2012 21:20, Christopher Woods (IWD)
chris...@infinitus.co.uk wrote:
On 04/11/2012 16:48, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
In my opinion, copying from Google Street View is still a legally
dubious thing to do. There is no formal licensing agreement with
Google that I know of. It is
On 2012-11-04 19:08, andrzej zaborowski wrote:
2(e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person
access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but
not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery,
and visible map data;
so checking the
On 03.11.2012 00:14, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
From the dates, it looks like most of those are from the Haiti earthquake
tracing, when Google allowed OSM to use its imagery for tracing. See
I strongly suggest to contact DWG and not try to do some clean-up action on
your own.
How certain are you that the source tag refers to the coordinate? Culd also
be the phone number of a shop found by a google search, right?
Each of these occurences has to be checked and the mapper
On 03.11.2012 19:25, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
Is copying from Google search acceptable anyway?
I say yes. Even this is inferior mapping like any kind of armchair mapping.
Let's assume one enters website addresses and phone numbers of
restaurants. Tagging phone= and website=.
You are not
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.dewrote:
As you mentioned StreetView: Using it to create a database is likely a
violation of their TOS and OSM does not want this practice.
In which way Google could have copyright or database rights on factual
data derived
On 04/11/12 07:24, Paul Johnson wrote:
Would it be acceptable to use Street View to aid your memory of local
knowledge of the ground truth? Something that's on the tip of your
brain and you have actually been there, but can't remember what a
specific sign said?
Next time, write it down
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Stephan Knauss o...@stephans-server.de wrote:
On 03.11.2012 19:25, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
Is copying from Google search acceptable anyway?
I say yes. Even this is inferior mapping like any kind of armchair mapping.
Let's assume one enters website addresses
On 03/11/2012 21:31, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
I am pretty sure that in most of these cases, users are copying from
Google Maps or Google Street View and the data should be deleted. In
many cases, the infringing data is something like a road name.
I'm pretty sure that Google have actually said
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/11/2012 21:31, Andrew MacKinnon wrote:
I am pretty sure that in most of these cases, users are copying from
Google Maps or Google Street View and the data should be deleted. In many
cases, the infringing data is
The wiki says:
If you find any acts Vandalism or illegal copying from sources and
the user does not respond to messages you can contact the Data
Working Group on the e-mail address d...@osmfoundation.org.
You are now proposing to skip the messaging the user part and
replacing it with
From the dates, it looks like most of those are from the Haiti earthquake
tracing, when Google allowed OSM to use its imagery for tracing. See
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Haiti/Imagery_and_data_sources#Google_Imagery
Cheers, Brad
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Andrew
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com wrote:
From the dates, it looks like most of those are from the Haiti earthquake
tracing, when Google allowed OSM to use its imagery for tracing. See
67 matches
Mail list logo
