Considering the same legal issues arise frequently, would you mind posting a
link to the discussion, because all I can find is this:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Copyright_Inquiry
And in a quick response to the second question, your scenery would be more
detailed if you built it using
Considering the same legal issues arise frequently, would you mind posting
a link to the discussion, because all I can find is this:
http://wiki.flightgear.org/index.php/Copyright_Inquiry
And in a quick response to the second question, your scenery would be more
detailed if you built it
flightg...@sablonier.ch wrote:
BTW. I=92m wondering why no one uses the new flightgear-scenery mailing list
for such discussion? Does it need more promotion?
According to my personal experience it simply doesn't get any work done
to have yet another communication channel (just look at the
Am 13.03.12 17:46, schrieb Martin Spott:
According to my personal experience it simply doesn't get any work done
to have yet another communication channel (just look at the Scenery web
forum - you know what I mean ;-) but it adds more overhead because
there's one more channel to monitor.
-Original Message-
From: Martin Spott
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 7:00 AM Newsgroups: list.flightgear-devel
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Flightgear-devel] Willfully violating Google Terms of Use underthe
FlightGear umbrella ?
http://www.flightgear.org
Alan Teeder wrote:
From: Martin Spott
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5t=15711p=152972sid=0383829e2324ecb1bc0c0ed67655e826#p152945
The original question did refer to paper maps.
Indeed, so why doesn't this jerk just develop a sensible on-topic reply
instead of posting
Dear Martin,
I disagree that you sign a contract when looking at printed maps. You
cannot establish a contract by stating: by looking at this map, you
agree to X Y and Z.
However, at least in Germany where the original question came from,
there are separate laws protecting Geodata from reuse,
Johannes,
Johannes Ebke wrote:
On 12.03.2012 09:38, Martin Spott wrote:
The issue in question, neither with Google imagery nor with most
printed maps, is _not_ about Copyright. Instead, by buying a printed
map or by using Google Earth, you're signing a contract over how you're
allowed to
On Monday 12 March 2012 11:17:05 Martin Spott wrote:
No, not by looking at a map, but by buying a printed map - which is
what I stated above. Since you hardly get your hands onto commercial,
printed maps (which I believe is the item we're talking about) without
the act of buying the media,
Stefan Seifert wrote:
For example at least in Germany and Austria but problably most of Europe,
these Terms of Use printed on the map are no more legally binding than an
End User License Agreement which many programs display on first start. That
is because in these jurisdictions, one
Martin Spott wrote:
Stefan Seifert wrote:
For example at least in Germany and Austria but problably most of Europe,
these Terms of Use printed on the map are no more legally binding than an
End User License Agreement which many programs display on first start.
That
is because in these
There is a big difference between republishing a printed work and using
it for a derivative, such as deducting measurements from a (paper) map
to make a computer model of the streets or buildings which are also
represented on the map.
First off, in the case of a direct republish, the map's
Robin van Steenbergen wrote:
In case of a building or airport modeled off a map, how is the original
map-maker going to recognize that the runway (12000ft long) was actually
derived from *his* map?
I'd like to emphasize that willfully violating the terms of use of a
map should always be
Op 12-3-2012 14:33, Martin Spott schreef:
Robin van Steenbergen wrote:
In case of a building or airport modeled off a map, how is the original
map-maker going to recognize that the runway (12000ft long) was actually
derived from *his* map?
I'd like to emphasize that willfully violating the
Robin van Steenbergen wrote:
Op 12-3-2012 14:33, Martin Spott schreef:
I'd like to emphasize that willfully violating the terms of use of a
map should always be considered as being illegal and therefore
unwelcomed (particularly in FlightGear land), no matter wether the
map-maker can actually
Op 12-3-2012 15:26, Martin Spott schreef:
That's an interesting case and we probably had a similar one recently
in Germany. Did they try to sue anyone who *published* these
photographs (on their private Picasa/Flickr/Panoramio or other albums)
or just those who *sold* photographs ? Cheers,
: [Flightgear-devel] Willfully violating Google Terms of Use
Op 12-3-2012 15:26, Martin Spott schreef:
That's an interesting case and we probably had a similar one recently
in Germany. Did they try to sue anyone who *published* these
photographs (on their private Picasa/Flickr/Panoramio
-Original Message-
From: Robin van Steenbergen
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 3:17 PM
To: flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Willfully violating Google Terms of Use
They actually tried to sue anyone who published photographs of the
Atomium, either
@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Flightgear-devel] Willfully violating Google Terms of Use
They actually tried to sue anyone who published photographs of the
Atomium, either on their personal blog or on album accounts. Probably
through some kind of automated crawler script which was programmed
Hi, I'm the one who asked about the legal situation of using elevation data
from a topographic map.
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5t=15711p=152972sid=0383829e2324ecb1bc0c0ed67655e826#p152945
I checked with the institution that provides these maps and they said
they're _not_
Am 12.03.2012 18:25, schrieb andrea...@gmx.net:
Hi, I'm the one who asked about the legal situation of using elevation
data from a topographic map.
http://www.flightgear.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5t=15711p=152972sid=0383829e2324ecb1bc0c0ed67655e826#p152945
I checked with the institution
21 matches
Mail list logo
