Noticed in the archives[1] that my mail was chopped off, so resending with some different characters around Ed's email:
[1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-September/041753.html 2009/9/9 Dan Karran <[email protected]>: > 2009/9/9 Ian Dees <[email protected]>: > >> Back in March, Ed Parsons pointed out [0] that since StreetView images are >> Google-owned, if someone asked nicely-enough we could get them to give us a >> license to explicitly map based on the streetview images (similar to the >> explicit license we have with Yahoo). > > I'm not sure if anybody took this further with Ed or with Google back > around the time of that tweet, but I sent him a quick email earlier to > see what the status was here, and what we would be allowed to use > Street View images for, if anything. > > His response was basically that it's fine to check our existing facts > using the imagery from Street View, but it's not allowed - due to > their license - to do any mass data extraction from the images that > would then be republished. > > This is what Ed said: > -- > This remains a grey area of ip law, if it is the case of checking from > the photography itself facts such as the name of a building, that > would be ok.. there are some key points in the Terms of Service which > are useful.. > > "..you may not use Google Maps in a manner which gives you or any > other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of numerical > latitude and longitude co-ordinates." > > This is really saying you are not allowed to do mass tracing of > features that are then made available to third parties. > -- > > I came across a situation the other day where I was adding the address > details of a pub[1] to the map and noticed that the street name (Edis > St, from their website) didn't match up with the name of the street in > OSM[2] (Edith St). > > From what Ed's suggested, Street View could probably have been used to > confirm the local name[3] (ignore the armed police [4] ;) - to see > whether the pub had a typo on their site, or we had a typo in our > database - without having to go out and re-survey. > > > [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/265649578 > [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8400167 > [3] http://tr.im/yfAo > [4] http://tr.im/yfAU > > > Cheers, > Dan > ps - I'm not a lawyer :) -- Dan Karran [email protected] www.dankarran.com _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
