Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 service from Google. The rules in relation to that, are the rules for business transactions, not those of copyright. Just like Openstreetmap has rules that say you are not allowed to scrape tiles from our tileserver, Google has rules that say when you are allowed to use their services. Yes and they say I'm not allowed to copy all or parts of the provided material (images,...) and also that I can't make derivative work. When I interpret what I can see in Street View photos and write it down I'm doing neither of these ! On 11/05/2012 11:25 PM, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: 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 view images and noting some facts we can see in them like street names,... can't be seen as derivative work. And : When does derivative-work copyright exist? For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality. It's clear that Google's photos in street view have no originality at all, they are just facts. Using some information everybody can see in those images isn't a creative process either. In the light of those definitions of derivative work, I can't understand how one might see a infringement of google terms of use when OSM contributors look at Google Street View photos to verify some facts (street names, signs, ...) Regards, Vlad. Le 5 nov. 2012 à 16:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org a écrit : 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 Google's terms of use do not permit making derivative works of their imagery and distributing them. As a project, our general approach to any situation where something was not totally clear legally has always been to err on the side of caution. If someone says that we cannot use this data then we won't, even if there are people who say that it might still be legal to do so. So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have explicit permission from Google to do so. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 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 business transactions, not those of copyright. Just like Openstreetmap has rules that say you are not allowed to scrape tiles from our tileserver, Google has rules that say when you are allowed to use their services. Yes and they say I'm not allowed to copy all or parts of the provided material (images,...) and also that I can't make derivative work. When I interpret what I can see in Street View photos and write it down I'm doing neither of these ! I'm sorry, but this statememt is just plain wrong in regards to OSM. When (and I say when) we get good enough that we are the default map to be used in online services, we want to be absolutely sure that neither Google or other sources of information (that we are not sure that we are allowed to use) can come and say that hey, we own large parts of your database, pay up!. I'm not speaking about the likelihood of getting sued by Google, but I thought the general consensus was to be on the safe side when it comes to copyright questions. Any wrongfully data will also destroy *my* work, especially if I have based my work on top of that again. I can guarantee that *I* will be pissed, not at the Google out there that demands their data removed, but at the culprit that added it to OSM in the first place. So anyone who considers adding stuff that is not 100% OK to copy is destroying the project from within, not helping it. Period. -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com 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 service from Google. The rules in relation to that, are the rules for business transactions, not those of copyright. Just like Openstreetmap has rules that say you are not allowed to scrape tiles from our tileserver, Google has rules that say when you are allowed to use their services. Yes and they say I'm not allowed to copy all or parts of the provided material (images,...) and also that I can't make derivative work. When I interpret what I can see in Street View photos and write it down I'm doing neither of these ! On 11/05/2012 11:25 PM, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: 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 view images and noting some facts we can see in them like street names,... can't be seen as derivative work. And : When does derivative-work copyright exist? For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality. It's clear that Google's photos in street view have no originality at all, they are just facts. Using some information everybody can see in those images isn't a creative process either. In the light of those definitions of derivative work, I can't understand how one might see a infringement of google terms of use when OSM contributors look at Google Street View photos to verify some facts (street names, signs, ...) Regards, Vlad. Le 5 nov. 2012 à 16:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org a écrit : 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 Google's terms of use do not permit making derivative works of their imagery and distributing them. As a project, our general approach to any situation where something was not totally clear legally has always been to err on the side of caution. If someone says that we cannot use this data then we won't, even if there are people who say that it might still be legal to do so. So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have explicit permission from Google to do so. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 you see it through a copyrighted photo. And this is true worldwide, not only in some countries. But some people are continuing to keep the doubts because they have a preference for surveys on the ground (something we have to promote anyway but with fair arguments). Claiming copyright ownership on public domain material has a name, it's called copyfraud ([1]) and is rarely sued in court in comparison to copyright infringements. Period. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyfraud ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 the doubts because they have a preference for surveys on the ground (something we have to promote anyway but with fair arguments). Claiming copyright ownership on public domain material has a name, it's called copyfraud ([1]) and is rarely sued in court in comparison to copyright infringements. The legality around copyright on collections of facts are different throughout the world. We have to assume that collections of facts are, indeed, copyrightable, and that a lawsuit (or even just bad publicity) based on it will be able to stick. -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 terms concerning the use of the StreetView service. 2. There is a possible interpretation of these conditions that may well open one or more parties to legal action from the service provider. 3. The OSM project wants to remain beyond reproach when it comes to its legal position on its data. 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? Ian. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 like that from google, so that's the difference. regards Peter Am 06.11.2012 10:21, schrieb Janko Mihelic': 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 vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com mailto:vladimir.vysko...@gmail.com On 5 nov. 2012, at 23:39, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl mailto: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 service from Google. The rules in relation to that, are the rules for business transactions, not those of copyright. Just like Openstreetmap has rules that say you are not allowed to scrape tiles from our tileserver, Google has rules that say when you are allowed to use their services. Yes and they say I'm not allowed to copy all or parts of the provided material (images,...) and also that I can't make derivative work. When I interpret what I can see in Street View photos and write it down I'm doing neither of these ! On 11/05/2012 11:25 PM, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: 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 view images and noting some facts we can see in them like street names,... can't be seen as derivative work. And : When does derivative-work copyright exist? For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law's requirement of originality. It's clear that Google's photos in street view have no originality at all, they are just facts. Using some information everybody can see in those images isn't a creative process either. In the light of those definitions of derivative work, I can't understand how one might see a infringement of google terms of use when OSM contributors look at Google Street View photos to verify some facts (street names, signs, ...) Regards, Vlad. Le 5 nov. 2012 à 16:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org a écrit : 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 Google's terms of use do not permit making derivative works of their imagery and distributing them. As a project, our general approach to any situation where something was not totally clear legally has always been to err on the side of caution. If someone says that we cannot use this data then we won't, even if there are people who say that it might still be legal to do so. So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have explicit permission from Google to do so. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 action from the service provider. That's why somebody asked Ed Parsons/Google in the past. To clarify interpretations. His reponse was publicly forwarded at multiple times. Why Google lawyers did not take any legal action or at least some denial since 18 months ? 3. The OSM project wants to remain beyond reproach when it comes to its legal position on its data. 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? None. And this is not in contradiction with what Ed Parsons, Google replied: so checking the odd street names is OK.. but every street name I would suggest would represent a bulk feed. (refering to the collection of facts mentionned earlier). Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 of the legal situation we would not like Google (and others) to rip-off OSM so we should not rip them off in return. It is just basic respect at the end of the day. Kevin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 it very freely. Photos are copyrighted subject, even of your house in the street. Now, there are different *ongoing* legal discussions around the world about is it legal or not copy facts from photos. However, as long as those disputes are ongoing and haven't ended in clear court decision, we should avoid this - no matter how sweet is to have street names without doing ground survey; 2. We don't delete stuff just because we find it suspicious. Best is contact users first, get their POV, then contact data group. And that's pretty much it. We can discuss to death can we or can't we, but we won't copy stuff from Google. But we also won't delete stuff before discussing this in appropriate channels of communication. Instead of that, how about improving map using current sources - like Bing. And then going outside and writing down another bunch of house numbers and POIs. Cheers, Peter. O , 2012.11.06. 20:49 +1100, Ian Sergeant rakstīja: 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 terms concerning the use of the StreetView service. 2. There is a possible interpretation of these conditions that may well open one or more parties to legal action from the service provider. 3. The OSM project wants to remain beyond reproach when it comes to its legal position on its data. 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? Ian. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 difference? Janko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 conclusion from 4 (those) to 5 (we): from what I read in this thread *1 it seems that it is not sufficient to get an explicit permission individually in order to benefit collectively from it. So the natural conclusion would be that an official body from OSM would make a request to Google and hope for a positive response if we want to use their Street View data. Personally I see it like Pieren: there are terms and conditions which request you to not copy or make derivative works from their services/maps/images/works/... where both terms (copy and derivative work) are well defined: derivative work is refering to copyrightable parts. Interpreting something you see in a photo is neither copying nor creating a derivative work as long as the content is not protected by copyright (the name of a street is not protected by copyright or even if it was it would not be Google to hold the copyright as long as they didn't invent it (easter egg)). Anyway: the most precious ways to add to OSM are those where Google Streetview didn't even pass by, so in my practical work I don't use them because they mostly don't have the pictures for the areas I'm mapping in ;-) cheers, Martin - *1 Frederik: I don't think that a personal message to one individual mapper from someone, even if in a high position at Google, should be read as Google allowing every mapper to use their imagery. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 the added value protected. Facts visible on aerial imagery like the sea is blue is not copyrighted. But coastline position and shape is. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 with relevant legal citations. Better head over to legal-talk for a more profound statement. Use your trusted search engine to find more: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_in_deriving_from_aerial_photogr aphy As long as the legal situation is not 100% clear, OSM community agreed not to import from dubious sources. The key part is the TOS. They forbid to use services provided by Google to do mass-extraction of data. Click in Google on Terms to learn more. While it was confirmed by Ed Parsons that is OK to look up single facts, he clearly stated that Armchair Mapping is considered Mass extraction and thus not OK. As a community we strongly favor on the ground survey also for the fact that imagery is very often outdated. It was already mentioned, but I like to repeat: It's also an established community rule that we don't delete data just because we have a different opinion on whether it should be in OSM. We ALWAYS contact the mapper first. This is why OSM has a send message function implemented and clearly shows who created an element. Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 Streetview. What is the difference? Tracing details from satellite images is creating a derived work and is copying. However if you could SEE a road name on the satellite images then simply reading something that is in the public domain can not be protected in the same way. Looking at an image on Streetview is no different to looking at the same image from any source. If a street name just happens to be visible, or the name of a shop or business one can then use that information, cross check against another search engine that it's not an 'Easter Egg' and there is no way one source can claim special rights over that information. There is no way that anybody could prove that a CORRECT public fact was copied from one source or another ... only ones designed to deceive which in my view are a worse offence? In my own case businesses are now well out of date with many of the Streetview images anyway but Google still returns those years after they ceased to exist. We can then provide up to date data but we are not allowed to say 'Wrong on Streetview'? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 the real point that regardless of the legal situation we would not like Google (and others) to rip-off OSM so we should not rip them off in return. It is just basic respect at the end of the day. It's not theft if you have permission, sigh. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 like the sea is blue is not copyrighted. But coastline position and shape is. Streetview photos are georeferenced. Google found their position, and gave it to you. That is how you found them. 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. Janko ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 reliance. It means that you can rely on people's assurances. If you are told that you can do something which would, without that assurance, be a civil offense, then you can bring that assurance into a court of law and say I believed that I had permission. I thought I was complying with the law. and the judge will say You were. Case dismissed. That is why, whenever someone is asked about an ongoing lawsuit, they *always* say No comment. You MUST publicly believe your own propaganda, or risk losing in court. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 shape from their photos into OSM, you are right. But if it is about checking street signs, the method how the picture is delivered by Google doesn't change any thing. The street sign remains in the public domain and is not copyrightable just because its photo has been referenced (that would be the same if we could read the signs from aerial imagery). They could be delivered by other means (e.g. show me all pictures of street x, town y), it's not interfering with the content. Or do you suggest that any web site referenced by Google becomes its property because you found it through Google Search and its huge web sites index ? 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. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 ownership of some of the data as they had 'originally' published it. Basically they owned 'time'. To cut a long story short ... they have now withdrawn the claim so as to avoid being prosecuted for copyfraud themselves. The material is public domain and so can not be held to ransom. All of the material we are talking about comes under the same banner ... end of story. If we can't freely use public domain information why are we bothering recording it? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 selected by objective criteria: these are covered by *sui generishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis *database rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_rights. While copyright protects the creativity of an author, database rights specifically protect the qualitatively and/or quantitatively [a] substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents: if there has not been substantial investment (which need not be financial), the database will not be protected [Art. 7(1)]. Database rights are held in the first instance by the person or corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation which made the substantial investment, so long as: - the person is a national or domiciliary of a Member State or - the corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation is formed according to the laws of a Member State and has its registered office or principal place of business within the European Union. Article 11(3) provides for the negotiation of treaties to ensure reciprocal treatment outside the EU: as of 2006, no such treaty exists. The holder of database rights may prohibit the extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part of the contents: the substantial part is evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively and reutilization is subject to the exhaustion of rights. Public lending is not an act of extraction or re-utilization. The lawful user of a database which is available to the public may freely extract and/or re-use insubstantial parts of the database (Art. 8): the holder of database rights may not place restrictions of the purpose to which the insubstantial parts are used. However, users may not perform acts which conflict with normal exploitation of the database or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the maker of the database, nor prejudice any copyright in the entries. 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 names a substantial part of the street view data? On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: 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 shape from their photos into OSM, you are right. But if it is about checking street signs, the method how the picture is delivered by Google doesn't change any thing. The street sign remains in the public domain and is not copyrightable just because its photo has been referenced (that would be the same if we could read the signs from aerial imagery). They could be delivered by other means (e.g. show me all pictures of street x, town y), it's not interfering with the content. Or do you suggest that any web site referenced by Google becomes its property because you found it through Google Search and its huge web sites index ? 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. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 names a substantial part of the street view data? Since the information displayed in an image has not been 'collected into a database' what is the problem? It is just raw material that still needs to be processed and in many cases it does not even tie up with even googles own search results. So providing an alternative database of information which corrects that information is simply common sense. And I don't accept that the fact that google have 'geo-referenced' the images comes into it since I normally have to scroll through several locations before finding the appropriate data, just as I scroll through several pages of results or browse several folders of pictures to get the right material. At some point it would be nice if we could link to alternate data sources direct from the map, but providing that via an alternate database such as nominatim just reinforces the fact that we ARE building an alternate database ... Of cause in the UK once the street gazetteer is made open access the problem of street names becomes academic, and hopefully that will not be long coming as well. At which time the NLPG data may also be available, and we can start feeding corrections back into that! -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 every street name I would suggest would represent a bulk feed. 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 access of data, and is definitely outside their terms and conditions. how do you know everyone else is not thinking the same thing as you, and checking the odd street names? 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 said, you want the data, go collect it. 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 Streetview even has it visible. Around here coverage from Streetview is not complete and some smaller roads have no coverage, so having looked is THAT now a problem? I also check business address data against bing/google/yell - it's not their property as they have copied it from other peoples sites anyway? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 public list? Ian. :-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 said, you want the data, go collect it. Why do you say data. It's about Google photos. Who said you can copy the photos ? Is the content of these photos a creative work or any added value ? I understand your caution but don't promote copyfraud. Public domain material is not copyrightable. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 access of data, and is definitely outside their terms and conditions. I am not sure it is. The terms and conditions apply to who uses the Google service, which in your example are the single mappers. If each of these uses the service to get one name I doubt that this is a breach of the ToS. It would be different if the OSMF encouraged or coordinated the single mappers, I agree. IMHO if you choose from a huge pile of non-artistic photographs some single objects depicted and then write about them, you are copying nothing, for sure you are not copying the photograph. write about it would be applicable also to someone making a drawing of stuff he selected and where he put descriptive tags on contained elements he selects. You are not copying Google's photographs, you are not tracing their photographs, you are not copying from them IMHO. 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 said, you want the data, go collect it. It is not copying data, because it is the mapper who creates the _data_ by his own interpretation and selection of things that are - besides an infinite amount of other things - contained in a gigantic series of photographs. If you read ten books about something and then write about your own thoughts and conclusions from your reading, using your own words, are you copying the books? Is it possible to forbid this? I doubt it. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
Martin wrote: The terms and conditions apply to who uses the Google service, Do they actually ? If their terms would state that you owe Google one dollar for each picture, would that hold in court ? In what way the current terms are different from asking money Any pay site makes you pay before access, just because of the ambiguity of contracting IP-numbers. For a contract to be valid the 2 parties need to agree, that means that at least a click I agree is needed, backed up by a traceable link to an individual. For the rest I agree with your interpretation of getting content out 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 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 access of data, and is definitely outside their terms and conditions. I am not sure it is. The terms and conditions apply to who uses the Google service, which in your example are the single mappers. If each of these uses the service to get one name I doubt that this is a breach of the ToS. It would be different if the OSMF encouraged or coordinated the single mappers, I agree. IMHO if you choose from a huge pile of non-artistic photographs some single objects depicted and then write about them, you are copying nothing, for sure you are not copying the photograph. write about it would be applicable also to someone making a drawing of stuff he selected and where he put descriptive tags on contained elements he selects. You are not copying Google's photographs, you are not tracing their photographs, you are not copying from them IMHO. 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 said, you want the data, go collect it. It is not copying data, because it is the mapper who creates the _data_ by his own interpretation and selection of things that are - besides an infinite amount of other things - contained in a gigantic series of photographs. If you read ten books about something and then write about your own thoughts and conclusions from your reading, using your own words, are you copying the books? Is it possible to forbid this? I doubt it. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 can certainly trawl through everything everybody has contributed and try and identify some single item that might have been viewed on Streetview. If I'm not allowed to look at Streetview simply because I also contribute then that is just insane? They 'copy' enough from other sources that many of their claims would be difficult to justify in a court of law ... but the whole basis of Streetview is that THEY are free to photograph private property without any reference to the property owner while we would be prosecuted if we climbed up a ladder to look at the same view? Using that information in another website might well make us liable for prosecution, where Google just ignore the problem? I'll carry on looking at Streetview and filling in bits on OSM that Streetview misses anyway :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 Streetview even has it visible. Around here coverage from Streetview is not complete and some smaller roads have no coverage, so having looked is THAT now a problem? I also check business address data against bing/google/yell - it's not their property as they have copied it from other peoples sites anyway? By showing the relation between Streetview accesslogs and edits on OSM? They could easily do that. Personally I'm not using Streetview but it would be great if I could so I'm following the discussion... Greets, Floris Looijesteijn ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 and yes I do cross check, but MORE simply to confirm that Streetview even has it visible. Around here coverage from Streetview is not complete and some smaller roads have no coverage, so having looked is THAT now a problem? I also check business address data against bing/google/yell - it's not their property as they have copied it from other peoples sites anyway? By showing the relation between Streetview accesslogs and edits on OSM? They could easily do that. 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 relationship. I have a fixed IP address, so am identified, but I'm still happy that viewing a similar area does not constitute proof of any copying. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 relationship. I have a fixed IP address, so am identified, but I'm still happy that viewing a similar area does not constitute proof of any copying. Why an unrelated time? 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. Greets, Floris ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 StreetView if they wished to. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 would only accept a proven pattern rather than a vague relationship. I have a fixed IP address, so am identified, but I'm still happy that viewing a similar area does not constitute proof of any copying. Why an unrelated time? 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. Well they still have to prove that you actually COPIED something during a search, but in my own case it may be several hours between cross checking data and any commit on OSM. Any bulk import I do on OSM will certainly not be related to activity on Goggle, I will only follow up later cross checking and adding missing detail as required, to material traced from bing imagery or surveyed on the ground. My point here is that while a third party could show that ways on OSM were copied directly from their own data, proving that an 'observation' was updated simply by looking at an image in Streetview or some other picture service is not something that is going to be provable legally. So using streetview as an occasional information source is just the same as any other source of publicly available information? The original base of the thread was related to copying goggle information from goggle maps, which has been authorised in some instances. Streetview and other 'services' are a much more 'woolly' area, and I think all I am saying is that it is NOT something that would have a source=goggle tag - which should relate to legitimate copying. Anyone thinking they need to delete that content MUST first confirm that it is not legitimate as in the case identified IS the case. The remaining question is probably Is tagging some additional piece of data as source=google correct? In my own case we are confirming business details which come from the business website, rather than from goggle, which only provided search results for that website. It could equally have been bing or yell that provided the data, and looking on Streetview for confirmation of a business location seems to be a legitimate use of Streetview ... although many of the businesses are not even accessible from Streetview anyway. So probably the question is Should I be identifying all of the sources I've used when the final result is from a business website? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 I can. Vlad. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 Google's terms of use do not permit making derivative works of their imagery and distributing them. As a project, our general approach to any situation where something was not totally clear legally has always been to err on the side of caution. If someone says that we cannot use this data then we won't, even if there are people who say that it might still be legal to do so. So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have explicit permission from Google to do so. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 indeed differ from country to country but Google's terms of use do not permit making derivative works of their imagery and distributing them. As a project, our general approach to any situation where something was not totally clear legally has always been to err on the side of caution. If someone says that we cannot use this data then we won't, even if there are people who say that it might still be legal to do so. So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have explicit permission from Google to do so. ...and if you have please document that in the wiki and link to that in the source tag or something like that to avoid confusion like the one starting this thread (that would be a confusion if it would be/is permitted by google) regards Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 to get a definitive answer ? Or should each individual contributor contact again Google as in the email's copy I mentionned in a previous post ? Or do you consider Ed Parsons reply as insufficient for a legal statement ? Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 mentionned in a previous post ? Or do you consider Ed Parsons reply as insufficient for a legal statement ? I don't think that a personal message to one individual mapper from someone, even if in a high position at Google, should be read as Google allowing every mapper to use their imagery. Furthermore, the terms of service contain other restrictions besides the one about bulk feeds, e.g. an attribution requirement. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 view images and noting some facts we can see in them like street names,... can't be seen as derivative work. And : When does derivative-work copyright exist? For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality. It's clear that Google's photos in street view have no originality at all, they are just facts. Using some information everybody can see in those images isn't a creative process either. In the light of those definitions of derivative work, I can't understand how one might see a infringement of google terms of use when OSM contributors look at Google Street View photos to verify some facts (street names, signs, ...) Regards, Vlad. Le 5 nov. 2012 à 16:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org a écrit : 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 Google's terms of use do not permit making derivative works of their imagery and distributing them. As a project, our general approach to any situation where something was not totally clear legally has always been to err on the side of caution. If someone says that we cannot use this data then we won't, even if there are people who say that it might still be legal to do so. So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have explicit permission from Google to do so. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 business transactions, not those of copyright. Just like Openstreetmap has rules that say you are not allowed to scrape tiles from our tileserver, Google has rules that say when you are allowed to use their services. On 11/05/2012 11:25 PM, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote: 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 view images and noting some facts we can see in them like street names,... can't be seen as derivative work. And : When does derivative-work copyright exist? For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality. It's clear that Google's photos in street view have no originality at all, they are just facts. Using some information everybody can see in those images isn't a creative process either. In the light of those definitions of derivative work, I can't understand how one might see a infringement of google terms of use when OSM contributors look at Google Street View photos to verify some facts (street names, signs, ...) Regards, Vlad. Le 5 nov. 2012 à 16:42, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org a écrit : 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 Google's terms of use do not permit making derivative works of their imagery and distributing them. As a project, our general approach to any situation where something was not totally clear legally has always been to err on the side of caution. If someone says that we cannot use this data then we won't, even if there are people who say that it might still be legal to do so. So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have explicit permission from Google to do so. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 a high position at Google, should be read as Google allowing every mapper to use their imagery. Most of third party sources agreements came from a high position from that particular source. If we should wait an official 50 pages contract document signed by 25 lawyers, approved and published by OSMF, then we should stop using Bing aerial imagery immediately. Furthermore, the terms of service contain other restrictions besides the one about bulk feeds, e.g. an attribution requirement. You probably noticed that the ToS is almost not about street view but mainly about GMaps and GEarth. Attribution and permission is required if you copy the photos or map data which is not what is discussed here. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 yourself? For most of the datasources we are allowed to use the permission was not arranged by the OSMF, why would they need to do it for this one? In case you forgot, OSM is a do-ocracy. If you want something done, then do it yourself. Don't demand it from someone else. -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 personal message to one individual mapper from someone, even if in a high position at Google, should be read as Google allowing every mapper to use their imagery. Most of third party sources agreements came from a high position from that particular source. If we should wait an official 50 pages contract document signed by 25 lawyers, approved and published by OSMF, then we should stop using Bing aerial imagery immediately. Furthermore, the terms of service contain other restrictions besides the one about bulk feeds, e.g. an attribution requirement. You probably noticed that the ToS is almost not about street view but mainly about GMaps and GEarth. Attribution and permission is required if you copy the photos or map data which is not what is discussed here. The terms of service are for using the google maps API. In order to view street view images, you must use the google maps API. It doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. https://developers.google.com/maps/terms 10.1.1. General Restrictions. (a) No Access to Maps API(s) except through the Service. You must not access or use the Maps API(s) or any Content through any technology or means other than those provided in the Service So you the only way to access street view is through the API. 10.1.3 Restrictions against Data Export or Copying. (a) No Unauthorized Copying, Modification, Creation of Derivative Works, or Display of the Content. You must not copy, translate, modify, or create a derivative work (including creating or contributing to a database) of [...] Note the or contributing to a database in there. That pretty much exactly describes OSM. And regardless of the technical legality which may be somewhat of a gray area, Google has an infinite number of lawyers compared to OSMF and would likely prevail in any action they felt worth bringing against us. This is why we want to avoid even the possibility of doubt. Toby ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 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 a high position at Google, should be read as Google allowing every mapper to use their imagery. Most of third party sources agreements came from a high position from that particular source. If we should wait an official 50 pages contract document signed by 25 lawyers, approved and published by OSMF, then we should stop using Bing aerial imagery immediately. Furthermore, the terms of service contain other restrictions besides the one about bulk feeds, e.g. an attribution requirement. You probably noticed that the ToS is almost not about street view but mainly about GMaps and GEarth. Attribution and permission is required if you copy the photos or map data which is not what is discussed here. The terms of service are for using the google maps API. In order to view street view images, you must use the google maps API. It doesn't leave a lot of room for interpretation. https://developers.google.com/maps/terms 10.1.1. General Restrictions. (a) No Access to Maps API(s) except through the Service. You must not access or use the Maps API(s) or any Content through any technology or means other than those provided in the Service So you the only way to access street view is through the API. 10.1.3 Restrictions against Data Export or Copying. (a) No Unauthorized Copying, Modification, Creation of Derivative Works, or Display of the Content. You must not copy, translate, modify, or create a derivative work (including creating or contributing to a database) of [...] Note the or contributing to a database in there. That pretty much exactly describes OSM. And regardless of the technical legality which may be somewhat of a gray area, Google has an infinite number of lawyers compared to OSMF and would likely prevail in any action they felt worth bringing against us. 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. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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. -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 LOOKING at images on Streetview under the same 'it's OK' as I'm using the Bing imagery and other available resources. I am not hacking past anybodies 'API' ... I am using a service provided as it has been provided and am looking at the result. If they do not want us to look at the images they generate then they should require us to log in and sign an agreement at which point there is a 'contract' but while material is made visible it IS only copyright that applies. If I 'cut and paste' something or trace something I am copying. If I look at the material and write my own conclusions then it is free speech. The 'Easter egg' suggestion has been made, and PERSONALLY I would flag anything like that I found as such as other users need to know that other sources are providing incorrect information! But I would keep that to personal posts rather than commit the information to OSM at the moment ... There is an 'Easter Egg' list somewhere isn't there? The important point here is I do NOT use information viewed on Streetview if it is my ONLY source! I DO use it to establish any discrepancies ... I am looking for the Easter Eggs :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 your brain and you have actually been there, but can't remember what a specific sign said? Next time, write it down or take a photo. For now, either get written permission from Google that you can use Streetview to populate their main mapping competitor's database, or go and check, or wait for someone else to check. We have decided that we want to be whiter-than-white, and not tiptoe through a legal minefield. I understand that, but I mean as a memory aid for places you have actually been to. Here's something that Ed Parsons said in an email about Google StreetView usage in OSM: the relevant clause in the terms of service is.. 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 every street name I would suggest would represent a bulk feed. Cheers ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 View at all. We do not want any legally dubious data in the database. Again and again the same debate. We have to distinguish gmaps and street view. StreetView is just a collection of pictures. The street sign is not copyrighted by google, even if you see it through a copyrighted Google photo. And again, I will quote what Ed Parsons said to OSM : so checking the odd street names is OK.. but every street name I would suggest would represent a bulk feed. See the reference here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-April/057473.html Pieren Btw, tracing from Gmaps is different and is a copyright infringement. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 View at all. Btw.: interpreting an image and describing what you see has nothing or few to do with copying. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 Streetview, we often see people in their garden. I suspect they dont give a license for their image to Google. The same with municipalities. I suspect they dont give Google a license for their street signs. Unless you can prove that Google have a license for that. ;) Pierre ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 dubious. Google Street View is often outdated anyway. Copying from Google Maps is clearly not allowed. I realize that we don't want to alienate users, but I think that OSM still needs to be strict about deleting contributions from legally dubious sources. Many new users simply don't realize that copying from Google is not allowed, and may have made many other contributions from legal sources (which will not be deleted). In other cases, users don't realize that there are sources that OSM is legitimately allowed to copy from - e.g. I have had to explain to users in Canada that copying road names from Google is not OK, but copying from Geobase and Canvec is perfectly acceptable. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 View cars to take those pictures is legally dubious. Google Street View is often outdated anyway. Copying from Google Maps is clearly not allowed. I realize that we don't want to alienate users, but I think that OSM still needs to be strict about deleting contributions from legally dubious sources. Many new users simply don't realize that copying from Google is not allowed, and may have made many other contributions from legal sources (which will not be deleted). In other cases, users don't realize that there are sources that OSM is legitimately allowed to copy from - e.g. I have had to explain to users in Canada that copying road names from Google is not OK, but copying from Geobase and Canvec is perfectly acceptable. This is an interesting discussion about where to draw the line. To use one example: I could walk to the end of my street right now and look at the street sign; I could then do the same for all neighbouring roads in my locality. However, I could go to Google Street View and do the same thing. 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. Whilst not preferred, and 'trumpable' by another user submitting empirical observations, it's not a clear infringement of Google's cache of data as they never had exclusive access to the information prior to their own compilation efforts. You can obtain lists of street names from Royal Mail - heck, you can scrape them from PD mapping sources. The road network hasn't changed that dramatically in 100 years, save for trunk roads and infill in increasingly urban areas (IMO). However, 1:1 copying of complete topographical or road network information is far past the mark and also both a clear infringement of copyrighted materials and the licence under which access to said data is granted by the owner(s). If you copied Street View information wholesale, it's also a similarly clear infringement of licensed, copyrighted materials. Just the street names, however, isn't (on its own) a capital offence nor an obvious infringement of copyright. That all said, it shouldn't be encouraged as the sole source of information when compiling OSM maps - all it then does is further encourage laziness. What's absolutely clear as unallowable behaviour is for contributors to only rely upon road names from trad line-drawn maps, simply copying verbatim. Trap roads abound... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 feeling is that it is arguable that a organisation that has an army of lawyers, may construe that a million OSMers coordinating to use Google StreetView to build a competing mapping product is indeed a breach of its StreetView licence. But neither your gut feeling nor mine matters very much. We could both be wrong. Us playing amateur lawyers just doesn't advance the project. That's why the only position that makes sense (for anything less than 100% unencumbered public domain data) is to seek permission from the data owner or to go and do the survey. My feeling is that most OSMers would rather take the time, put in the effort, and make sure the result is free and open beyond question, rather than take shortcuts that put a shadow over our project. Ian. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 perfectly fine to capture data by taking pictures yourself, but relying on Google Street View cars to take those pictures is legally dubious. Google Street View is often outdated anyway. Copying from Google Maps is clearly not allowed. I realize that we don't want to alienate users, but I think that OSM still needs to be strict about deleting contributions from legally dubious sources. Many new users simply don't realize that copying from Google is not allowed, and may have made many other contributions from legal sources (which will not be deleted). In other cases, users don't realize that there are sources that OSM is legitimately allowed to copy from - e.g. I have had to explain to users in Canada that copying road names from Google is not OK, but copying from Geobase and Canvec is perfectly acceptable. This is an interesting discussion about where to draw the line. To use one example: I could walk to the end of my street right now and look at the street sign; I could then do the same for all neighbouring roads in my locality. However, I could go to Google Street View and do the same thing. 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. Whilst not preferred, and 'trumpable' by another user submitting empirical observations, it's not a clear infringement of Google's cache of data as they never had exclusive access to the information prior to their own compilation efforts. You can obtain lists of street names from Royal Mail - heck, you can scrape them from PD mapping sources. The road network hasn't changed that dramatically in 100 years, save for trunk roads and infill in increasingly urban areas (IMO). However, 1:1 copying of complete topographical or road network information is far past the mark and also both a clear infringement of copyrighted materials and the licence under which access to said data is granted by the owner(s). If you copied Street View information wholesale, it's also a similarly clear infringement of licensed, copyrighted materials. Just the street names, however, isn't (on its own) a capital offence nor an obvious infringement of copyright. It doesn't really matter whether the information is copyrightable. You can only access this information through the Google website and to use it you have to agree to the terms of use of that website, including agreeing that you wouldn't systematically extract data from it. I agree incompatible data should be removed from OSM but it makes no sense for a normal user to go around deleting it because they have no way to remove the information from the odbl database, which includes the history of edits. This can be done by redacting that data and the DWG currently has this ability. Also, as the beginning of this thread showed, a user is unlikely to know what licenses or agreements there are between the source and the OSM contributor. Cheer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 odd street names is OK.. but every street name I would suggest would represent a bulk feed. 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 access of data, and is definitely outside their terms and conditions. how do you know everyone else is not thinking the same thing as you, and checking the odd street names? 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 said, you want the data, go collect it. -- robin http://fu.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Haiti/Imagery_and_data_sources#Google_Imagery I didn't realize this. Still, there is a lot of data in the database with source=Google which is not in Haiti, which is obviously a copyright violation. Presumably this is the only time Google granted an exception? 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 contacted. I assume someone intending to copy data from google would not not set a source tag. So the places you found must be cases where the mapper believes it's OK to use that data. Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 contacted. I assume someone intending to copy data from google would not not set a source tag. So the places you found must be cases where the mapper believes it's OK to use that data. I strongly suspect that most/all of these occurrences (other than the Haiti data) are copyright infringement. Is copying from Google search acceptable anyway? It seems to be mostly new users who are the offenders, and I discovered this because I have seen new users add data from Google in Toronto, with a source tag source=Google, and had to revert it. 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). I have contacted the Data Working Group, they ought to do a better job deleting the data than I can. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 copying any data from Google or a Google database. You use Google to look up factual data. Google returns a link to a website brought online by most likely the operator of the restaurant in my example here. That site lists the data. Please forward your question to the legal-talk mailing list for a better clarification, but my common sense says this can never be copyrighted data (it's factual data). Also too little to claim database rights. This still leaves the possibility that some user does copy from Google Maps. Not too easy for them. To my knowledge all big editors prevent users from using Google imagery as a background image. So without using modified versions it's not possible. I have doubts that beginner users are capable of doing so. 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 from their imagery is still an open question. To discuss this more deeply better refer to legal-talk. Starting point for reading: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_in_deriving_from_aerial_photography Stephan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 from their imagery is still an open question. To discuss this more deeply better refer to legal-talk. Starting point for reading: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Copyright_in_deriving_** from_aerial_photographyhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_in_deriving_from_aerial_photography 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? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 or take a photo. For now, either get written permission from Google that you can use Streetview to populate their main mapping competitor's database, or go and check, or wait for someone else to check. We have decided that we want to be whiter-than-white, and not tiptoe through a legal minefield. Ian. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 and phone numbers of restaurants. Tagging phone= and website=. You are not copying any data from Google or a Google database. You use Google to look up factual data. Google returns a link to a website brought online by most likely the operator of the restaurant in my example here. That site lists the data. Please forward your question to the legal-talk mailing list for a better clarification, but my common sense says this can never be copyrighted data (it's factual data). Also too little to claim database rights. This still leaves the possibility that some user does copy from Google Maps. Not too easy for them. To my knowledge all big editors prevent users from using Google imagery as a background image. So without using modified versions it's not possible. I have doubts that beginner users are capable of doing so. 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 from their imagery is still an open question. To discuss this more deeply better refer to legal-talk. Starting point for reading: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_in_deriving_from_aerial_photography 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. This can't have come from a website which was found using Google Search, it has to have been copied from Google Maps. If a point of interest has its address and phone number copied from a website, shouldn't the source tag be source=website or something similar? The data was copied from the website, not from Google. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 that's it's OK for us to use Street View images to check the occasional street-name, but not to do that on a mass scale. -- Steve ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 something like a road name. I'm pretty sure that Google have actually said that's it's OK for us to use Street View images to check the occasional street-name, but not to do that on a mass scale. 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 View at all. We do not want any legally dubious data in the database. For the same reason, I think that deleting any data that has source=Google (except the Haiti data) would be prudent. Most of this data was obviously copied from Google Maps by new users who didn't know that this was not allowed. A small amount of the data could have conceivably been copied from some website that was found via Google Search, but I suspect most POIs with source=Google were simply lifted from Google Maps (not allowed). We are better off deleting a small amount of possibly infringing data, than being sued. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 assumptions. That is not a way to build a community. It also doesn't help in preventing people from making the same mistake again. Like the saying goes: Don't assume. It makes an ass out of you and me. -- --- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 your brain and you have actually been there, but can't remember what a specific sign said? Next time, write it down or take a photo. For now, either get written permission from Google that you can use Streetview to populate their main mapping competitor's database, or go and check, or wait for someone else to check. We have decided that we want to be whiter-than-white, and not tiptoe through a legal minefield. I understand that, but I mean as a memory aid for places you have actually been to. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
I have discovered a lot of data in OSM that appears to have been copied from Google Maps. See http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source#values and type google into the search box. There appear to be over 3 objects in the OSM database copied from Google. Anyone willing to help delete data and warn users? (It is a LOT of work to do this myself). Please beware that some of these objects may have been modified by innocent users afterward, please check the history to see which user originally added it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 MacKinnon andrew...@gmail.comwrote: I have discovered a lot of data in OSM that appears to have been copied from Google Maps. See http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/source#values and type google into the search box. There appear to be over 3 objects in the OSM database copied from Google. Anyone willing to help delete data and warn users? (It is a LOT of work to do this myself). Please beware that some of these objects may have been modified by innocent users afterward, please check the history to see which user originally added it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps
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 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Haiti/Imagery_and_data_sources#Google_Imagery I didn't realize this. Still, there is a lot of data in the database with source=Google which is not in Haiti, which is obviously a copyright violation. Presumably this is the only time Google granted an exception? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
