On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smole...@eunet.rs> wrote: > Andre Engels wrote: >> The thought process (note: I do not agree with it) goes like this: >> * A map or a sattelite photograph is copyrighted material >> * Taking a location from a map or a photograph is getting a derivative >> work from it >> * You are not allowed to make a derivative work from a copyrighted source > > In US copyright law, "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or > more pre-existing works". Since a pair of coordinates is not a work, it > can not be a derivative work, even if it is based upon one or more > pre-existing works. >
As I said, the selection of these coordinates is a work, and if you dont have any image available you cannot do so. What is the contract between you and google to use this data? Are you sure that you are allowed to just take the points and relicense them under the CC-SA? The sat images are not 100% facts, they are just one point of view. and just using one single source of information is not a good idea. Even one point may not be a problem, but if you select all the interesting points then you run into issues of collections and databases. I think the argument "points are facts" is too simple, we need to understand where these points come from. mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
