On 7/1/08, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marc Wick wrote: > > > Lets be fair. They don't allow you to use their data and you don't > > allow > > them to use yours. You are both in the same boat. > > Don't you want to reconsider your license and become really free and > > open? Then and only then you will have reason to complain. > > > We _are_ reconsidering our licence - search (ha - almost said > "Google") our wiki or mailing lists for mention of the Open Database > Licence. > > Punkish - no, you can't use the data you create with Mapmaker in OSM, > MyWickedMapApp or whatever. Your tracings are derived works from the > aerial imagery, and the ToUs expressly forbid you from using this > elsewhere: > > "The photographic imagery made available for display through the > Service is provided under a nonexclusive, non-transferable license for > use only by you. You may not use the imagery for any purpose other > than as reference to add information as provided through the Service. > You may not copy, modify or make derivative works of the imagery, in > whole or in part." >
My reading of the above is different. If I were to trace on the photo without adding any further value to it, the tracing would be a derivative work. If I were to take the photo and recolor it, it would be derivative. But, using the photo as a reference to add *new* information (after all, adding new information is the objective behind MapMaker) is not creating derivative work. If there is an intersection near my house which is known by the locals as "Left Fine Leg," and I use MapMaker's imagery to locate the intersection and then add the annotation "Left Fine Leg," that annotation does not seem to me to be a derivative work. Perhaps you are a lawyer, but I certainly am not. But, I would certainly consult a lawyer if I were to consider adding a substantial amount of information to MapMaker and wanted to make sure that it remained mine. Without such consultation, all this back-and-forth is conjecture. > Thing is, this time round, AFAICT Google actually _owns_ the aerial > imagery. They're not sublicensing it, they own it - look at the > credits. So it would cost them nothing to give other people derivation > rights. After all, Yahoo gave that to OSM and they don't even own the > imagery. > > cheers > > Richard > -- Puneet Kishor _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://lists.burri.to/mailman/listinfo/geowanking
