Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Kwan Ting Chan wrote: > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: >> What if we start to write articles about street and include all the >> buildings and boring parts of the streets in the WP or some >> subproject, where would it stop? What would protect a database of >> streets against such a swarm of fact collectors? >> mike > If you're outside the EU, then not a lot. The EU has the concept of > database right, but that does not exist in other part of the world. > Wikipedia is operated under US federal and California (?) state laws, > where mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and > unprotected. > And taking that a little further: If Google's Terms of Service are in fact a contract they would include choosing the jurisdiction of California courts and law, and purport to override Conflict of Laws legislation. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:35 PM, wrote: > "Maps" are not "Points". You're setting up an argument quite different > from that with which you started. They aren't "great maps", they're awful > maps > :) Explain your bias! Do you work for Google Maps and are just here > trolling us? What's a software key to using a map? >Are you suggesting that some > of our maps are extracted from non-public sources? But again stick to > points or stick to maps, don't meander all over the board. My discussion was about both maps and points, it is about the difference in the policies between the two projects and how we cannot use the map data from WP because of it. Ideally I would like to see some type of harmonisation between the two so that the map data in WP is immediately acceptable and up to the same standards that OSM has. Why should I not be able to use the maps and points and other geographic information in WP directly in OSM? I would love to have the map images georeferenced or even better available in some type of vector format with exact coordinates. OK, I will explain exactly my bias and give you a short history: I have been working on promoting WP and OSM in the Balkans, have been working alot in Kosovo, and now we are starting in Albania. We have looked at purchasing sat images for tracing because there are no good detailed public domain images available. It is expensive, at least I have cleared up the issue about tracing these images when you buy them, it seems that all the sat providers give you rights to trace. The sat images that google (digital globe) has are the best you will find of those areas. You can see the buildings, the streets and all the relevant features. You cannot see most of those features on the yahoosat or landsat photos. We have considered possibilities to legally using these images, but are running into all types of issues. I have considered the idea of creating a project that would just trace the restricted images so that we would extract the vector data for the streets and then compare them to our current street data for checking. also that was shot down : http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/h4ck3rm1k3/diary/10108 I have tried to use the wikipedia data points as a starting point for points on the empty map, but that was rejected by the osm team as I have pointed out. Really, I would like to have some clarity on what is doable, what is legal, what is fair. It seems that WP does not have these issues, and there are alot of map data that I would even use, but because I dont know where it comes from, it seems to risky for me. My arguments here are an attempt to summarise the issues and arguments that I have heard to get some type of consensus. Ideally, as I said we would have some constructive dialogue between the two teams and find some type of agreement. I am not trying to suggest bad things about WP, I am a big fan of WP! We have been working on finding new editors, promoting WP in schools and I have also been working on various little technical projects. What I am doing is giving you some of the arguments that I have gotten, and I apologise if I have not done this in the right manner. I don't want to cause problems or troll at all, and I hope that there will be some positive outcome from this thread. I am going to try and wait for more experienced people to comment on this thread and not cause any more damage than I have already. thank you for your time and patience, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Mike, We're now some 40 messages into this thread. I went back and checked, and not a single poster supports your arguments. I appreciate that you've been polite and have made a good-faith effort to argue your case in a civil manner, but I think it's clear that this you're not winning this one—at least not here. I'm not saying that you're wrong—though, for the record, I think you are—but at this point you're just beating a dead horse. I have no problem with you pursuing this further, but I suggest that you consolidate your points on Meta and see if you can find others willing to engage in reasonable discussion without repeating the same arguments ad infinitum. Regards, Austin Hair List Administrator ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
In a message dated 4/1/2010 5:28:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > Guys, > Lets get back to one point : terms of service. > > We are talking about copyright here the whole time, but the contract > agreement in the terms of service are much more binding, they override > your copyright.>> --- No they do not. We've already been through this before. Any terms of service purporting to copyright things in the PD is null and void. We can ignore any interpretation that such a database exerts a new right to copyright a PD item. --- > > If the terms of service do not allow mass database extraction, WP is > violating that on a large scale. >> If the provider is violating common sense and decency, we can ignore their terms of service. And who is stating "mass database extraction" except you? AFAIK, the lat/long points were entered more or less haphazardly from various sources --- > > The online maps are provided to you under very strict rules and to > access them you must agree to them. > The whole idea of many map providers is that you can only view these > great maps using their software and their software keys. >> --- "Maps" are not "Points". You're setting up an argument quite different from that with which you started. They aren't "great maps", they're awful maps :) Explain your bias! Do you work for Google Maps and are just here trolling us? What's a software key to using a map? Are you suggesting that some of our maps are extracted from non-public sources? But again stick to points or stick to maps, don't meander all over the board. - > > If wikipedia is condoning a mass import of data from such a source > that goes against that contract, how can you justify it? How can other > people trust the judgement of wikipedia on this issue? >> - Any contract that requires you to do something which is against the letter or spirit of the law is null and void, at least in that portion. > > What if we start to write articles about street and include all the > buildings and boring parts of the streets in the WP or some > subproject, where would it stop? What would protect a database of > streets against such a swarm of fact collectors? > mike>> - It wouldn't stop. Nothing would protect a database of streets against "fact" collectors. That is because facts cannot be copyright (repeat one hundred times on the blackboard in your own blood). By the way, many genealogical publications were quite annoyed when Ancestry decided to simply scan and index thousands of "copyrighted" books which were merely collections of "facts" (so and so married so and so and died and was buried here, etc etc), without permission, license or payment. They can, and they did. I can copy the telephone books of every city in the U.S. should I wish. You cannot copyright facts. Your sweat equity alone does not grant you a copyright. Your work must show creativity of some kind. Not merely slavish mechanical extraction and organization. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote: > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: >> >> Guys, >> Lets get back to one point : terms of service. >> >> We are talking about copyright here the whole time, but the contract >> agreement in the terms of service are much more binding, they override >> your copyright. >> >> If the terms of service do not allow mass database extraction, WP is >> violating that on a large scale. > > 1. Is there mass database extraction of any particular service? If so, who > by? Editors have used multiple ways of coming up with these lat/long values; > GPS location reader, Sat Nav, Google Maps / Earth, OS maps, maps by other > company online and printed, Well since WP does not have any source tag for locations, it will be hard to tell. Without proper attribution of the information sources, we can only assume the worst. If there was some tagging of source of the coordinates, it would be better. There needs to be some citation on the source of the coordinates. Just like images get deleted off of commons without any attribution, you should delete locations and maps that are not cited properly. Even the usage of the Haiti sat data requires attribution. It is an international standard. > 2. The contract is between the service provider (again say) Google, and the > end user of that service, i.e. the person who access it and later input the > value into WP. Nowhere did Wikimedia Foundation come to any agreement with > Google. One can't violate a contract that never existed. > >> The online maps are provided to you under very strict rules and to >> access them you must agree to them. >> The whole idea of many map providers is that you can only view these >> great maps using their software and their software keys. >> >> If wikipedia is condoning a mass import of data from such a source >> that goes against that contract, how can you justify it? How can other >> people trust the judgement of wikipedia on this issue? > > You are assuming there is 1) any violation of contract in the first place; Well, it is my laypersons interpretation of the contract. Lets assume it for one moment. > 2) the wikipedia community is aware of it; As I said,there are not many good sources for map data. if you look at the instructions on how to collection points, you would get the impression that it is just fine to follow those instructions. WP has extensive instructions on how to use restricted maps for data collection. >3) said community is condoning it. Well if you read the page on how to get coordinates there is more information on how to get the data from these sources and very little on warnings. I can say that the OSM community is absolutely not condoning it, up to the point that they say that we cannot use WP data. >> What if we start to write articles about street and include all the >> buildings and boring parts of the streets in the WP or some >> subproject, where would it stop? What would protect a database of >> streets against such a swarm of fact collectors? >> mike > > If you're outside the EU, then not a lot. The EU has the concept of database > right, but that does not exist in other part of the world. Wikipedia is > operated under US federal and California (?) state laws, where mere > collections of facts are considered unoriginal and unprotected. I am living in Germany.. So count me out. Are there no Wikipedia servers hosted in Europe? That also means that if I were to start to use this data freely it would open me up to potential litigation. What type of freedom of knowledge is that if you can only use it in one country? As I said, you will have to come to terms that there are no real good freely available sources of map data out there, and sticking your head in the sand is just harming the OSM project. If WP would come clean and call out to people to do some real mapping work and help the OSM project then you would be producing truly free knowledge about the world. What I would like to see: 1. a stricter sourcing policy for the maps and point data, There should be a strict citation policy for all geographic data. Ideally the data and maps would come from OSM and adhere to OSM policy. 2. speedy deletion of unsourced / unattributed maps . I have already marked the Albania map for improper attribution. I guess I can start to do that with all the other maps as well. 3. better guidelines on collecting map data, there has to be some type of warning about TOS violoations when you add in datapoints. 4. a harmonisation with the OSM policy and a common agreement. Right now all we have is both sides (WP/OSM) not working together or talking to each other on this issue. The result is that there is less collaboration. Why dont we take this thread to the osm legal and stomp it out until we reach an agreement? thanks, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/lis
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: Guys, Lets get back to one point : terms of service. We are talking about copyright here the whole time, but the contract agreement in the terms of service are much more binding, they override your copyright. If the terms of service do not allow mass database extraction, WP is violating that on a large scale. 1. Is there mass database extraction of any particular service? If so, who by? Editors have used multiple ways of coming up with these lat/long values; GPS location reader, Sat Nav, Google Maps / Earth, OS maps, maps by other company online and printed, ... Unless there's a bot somewhere that go through one particular service, (say) Google Maps / Earth extracting data that I'm not aware of 2. The contract is between the service provider (again say) Google, and the end user of that service, i.e. the person who access it and later input the value into WP. Nowhere did Wikimedia Foundation come to any agreement with Google. One can't violate a contract that never existed. The online maps are provided to you under very strict rules and to access them you must agree to them. The whole idea of many map providers is that you can only view these great maps using their software and their software keys. If wikipedia is condoning a mass import of data from such a source that goes against that contract, how can you justify it? How can other people trust the judgement of wikipedia on this issue? You are assuming there is 1) any violation of contract in the first place; 2) the wikipedia community is aware of it; 3) said community is condoning it. What if we start to write articles about street and include all the buildings and boring parts of the streets in the WP or some subproject, where would it stop? What would protect a database of streets against such a swarm of fact collectors? mike If you're outside the EU, then not a lot. The EU has the concept of database right, but that does not exist in other part of the world. Wikipedia is operated under US federal and California (?) state laws, where mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and unprotected. KTC -- Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine PGP.sig Description: PGP signature ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:28 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > Guys, > Lets get back to one point : terms of service. > > We are talking about copyright here the whole time, but the contract > agreement in the terms of service are much more binding, they override > your copyright. > > If the terms of service do not allow mass database extraction, WP is > violating that on a large scale. How? By having people look on their pages every now and again, and see around which coordinates they are at a certain point? If that is "mass database extraction" then simply looking at the maps is "mass database extraction on a truly enormous unprecedented scale". Besides, even _if_ we would agree that pulling some bits of data from a map or a picture based on a database which probably is not even _in_ that database as such would entail "mass database extraction", then still the only one breaking anything would be the person who originally determined that village X is at coordinates Y, not the people who next copy this bit of knowledge. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Guys, Lets get back to one point : terms of service. We are talking about copyright here the whole time, but the contract agreement in the terms of service are much more binding, they override your copyright. If the terms of service do not allow mass database extraction, WP is violating that on a large scale. The online maps are provided to you under very strict rules and to access them you must agree to them. The whole idea of many map providers is that you can only view these great maps using their software and their software keys. If wikipedia is condoning a mass import of data from such a source that goes against that contract, how can you justify it? How can other people trust the judgement of wikipedia on this issue? What if we start to write articles about street and include all the buildings and boring parts of the streets in the WP or some subproject, where would it stop? What would protect a database of streets against such a swarm of fact collectors? mike On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > The position of a bridge, a building, a statue is a fact. It cannot be > copyrighted and the only reason for attribution of a map used to obtain such > a coordinate is to allow other people to verify the process. Coordinates are > available on many Wikipedia articles, they come from a wide variety of > sources and are provided by a large number of people. There is no way of > knowing what these people used to provide the information with. It is highly > irrelevant. > > I had a look at your references to entries in mailing lists. The only thing > I find is people having an opinion but not providing arguments. Facts, among > them coordinates found in Wikipedia articles, are part of a CC-by-sa > resource and once extracted from Wikipedia it is no longer possible to claim > copyright and insist on a particular licensing scheme. When articles that > include coordinates are projected as an overlay on a map be it OpenStreetMap > or Google Maps / Earth such an overlay uses the maps as a backdrop to > provide orientation in the real world. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 1 April 2010 12:07, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On this note, there is no real discussion of the copyright and >> licensing issues on this page: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools >> >> It says : >> There are various ways to obtain geographic coordinates. Note that >> regardless of the source of coordinates, it is good practice to >> evaluate whether they appear reasonable at first glance. >> >> Be sure to read the licensing information carefully so that data >> providers receive an appropriate attribution. >> >> So how are these coordinates being attributed? >> >> mike >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Hoi, The position of a bridge, a building, a statue is a fact. It cannot be copyrighted and the only reason for attribution of a map used to obtain such a coordinate is to allow other people to verify the process. Coordinates are available on many Wikipedia articles, they come from a wide variety of sources and are provided by a large number of people. There is no way of knowing what these people used to provide the information with. It is highly irrelevant. I had a look at your references to entries in mailing lists. The only thing I find is people having an opinion but not providing arguments. Facts, among them coordinates found in Wikipedia articles, are part of a CC-by-sa resource and once extracted from Wikipedia it is no longer possible to claim copyright and insist on a particular licensing scheme. When articles that include coordinates are projected as an overlay on a map be it OpenStreetMap or Google Maps / Earth such an overlay uses the maps as a backdrop to provide orientation in the real world. Thanks, GerardM On 1 April 2010 12:07, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On this note, there is no real discussion of the copyright and > licensing issues on this page: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools > > It says : > There are various ways to obtain geographic coordinates. Note that > regardless of the source of coordinates, it is good practice to > evaluate whether they appear reasonable at first glance. > > Be sure to read the licensing information carefully so that data > providers receive an appropriate attribution. > > So how are these coordinates being attributed? > > mike > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On this note, there is no real discussion of the copyright and licensing issues on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Google_tools It says : There are various ways to obtain geographic coordinates. Note that regardless of the source of coordinates, it is good practice to evaluate whether they appear reasonable at first glance. Be sure to read the licensing information carefully so that data providers receive an appropriate attribution. So how are these coordinates being attributed? mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > We are talking at cross purposes. What I am talking about are applications > of geo data like these > > - > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/03/swedes-have-their-map-support.html > - > > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/03/danes-have-their-map-support.html > > The data in both instances is extracted from Wikipedia articles. They > provide the geo locations relating to Wikipedia articles. In one instance > the data is projected on top of Google Maps and in the other on top of > findfey. > > There is no vector data involved just projection on top of existing maps. Projection on top of existing maps creates a new mashup, that is not the issue, it creates liabilities only for the hosting of that map itself. But where do these points come from? Is that not a collection of points derived from some unknown source that might be in violation of some contract or copyright? What about the EU database law? Is that not a significant extract of the database? We cannot include this data back into openstreetmap. I have also worked on extractors to parse out the articles and produce OSM files, and got blasted for doing so. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-July/016231.html There has been a discussion on this before: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-May/036582.html OSM policy states that we are not allowed to import Google derived points. If you are mapping a new area that is only empty space, it is good to start with data that is available, out of copyright maps, some of the geonames data and if possible wikipedia articles. They can provide locations to start with as reference locations. My interest is improving the data in OSM directly and finding sources that are usable to create the base layer. Wikipedia is not yet a source of map data that can be used in accordance with OSM policy, and there are good reasons why not. mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Hoi, We are talking at cross purposes. What I am talking about are applications of geo data like these - http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/03/swedes-have-their-map-support.html - http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/03/danes-have-their-map-support.html The data in both instances is extracted from Wikipedia articles. They provide the geo locations relating to Wikipedia articles. In one instance the data is projected on top of Google Maps and in the other on top of findfey. There is no vector data involved just projection on top of existing maps. Thanks, GerardM On 1 April 2010 11:13, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Gerard Meijssen > wrote: > > A good counter example is the use of OpenStreetMap after the > > Haiti disaster.. it is based on the same kinds of data that is put into > > doubt in a different context. > > That was done only after OSM received explicit permission to use that data. > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Haiti/Imagery_and_data_sources#GeoEye > > We did not receive this permission for the flooding in Albania that I > am working on, if we could use the images then that would make our > work much simpler. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AlbanianFloodingCrisisCamp > > Just because it is good publicity for a company to donate data to a > high profile disaster does not mean that you can use other data for > other smaller disasters. > > How would these companies be in business if you could just extract all > the vector data from the sat photos as you wish? If that was so, I > could also extract the street data from the google earth using a > contour program, or extract certain colors and create and compare > streets based on that. > > That is against against OSM policy. > > A friend of mine has created a bullet point list of the major issues > here, I will include it for further discussion: > > * Using data from google maps is a contract law issue, not a copyright > issue > ** Anyone mass publishing google derived data could be in breach of > Google's T&C's > ** Anyone using the information afterwards isn't in breach of contract > ** Re-use is dependent on the jurisdiction and copyright the > information is released under. > > * Wikipedia has strong policy on accepting images only freely usable > ** The same can't be said for data, wikipedia has data from dubious sources > ** Data uploaded from google services may be in breach of google's > terms on mass distribution > > * While facts aren't protected under copyright under some jurisdictions > ** Databases of facts can be protected under EU law and wikipedia > operates in various EU jurisdictions > ** By not having a strong policy on all content wikipedia may open > themselves up to being liable > > > mike > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
By the way, this seems like a good time to mention http://www.google.com/moderator/#15/e=1d33&t=1d33.40&q=1d33.10309 and http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > A good counter example is the use of OpenStreetMap after the > Haiti disaster.. it is based on the same kinds of data that is put into > doubt in a different context. That was done only after OSM received explicit permission to use that data. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Haiti/Imagery_and_data_sources#GeoEye We did not receive this permission for the flooding in Albania that I am working on, if we could use the images then that would make our work much simpler. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AlbanianFloodingCrisisCamp Just because it is good publicity for a company to donate data to a high profile disaster does not mean that you can use other data for other smaller disasters. How would these companies be in business if you could just extract all the vector data from the sat photos as you wish? If that was so, I could also extract the street data from the google earth using a contour program, or extract certain colors and create and compare streets based on that. That is against against OSM policy. A friend of mine has created a bullet point list of the major issues here, I will include it for further discussion: * Using data from google maps is a contract law issue, not a copyright issue ** Anyone mass publishing google derived data could be in breach of Google's T&C's ** Anyone using the information afterwards isn't in breach of contract ** Re-use is dependent on the jurisdiction and copyright the information is released under. * Wikipedia has strong policy on accepting images only freely usable ** The same can't be said for data, wikipedia has data from dubious sources ** Data uploaded from google services may be in breach of google's terms on mass distribution * While facts aren't protected under copyright under some jurisdictions ** Databases of facts can be protected under EU law and wikipedia operates in various EU jurisdictions ** By not having a strong policy on all content wikipedia may open themselves up to being liable mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Hoi, The COLLECTION of such facts is a work. A single fact is not a work. The collection of single facts creates a new collection however, claiming copyright because of it being expressed in a certain format is similar to Microsoft claiming copyright to all MS/Word documents. When an aggregation of data can be expressed in several file formats, claiming exclusive copyright based on the result of one such format is not only a travesty but also impossible to maintain. The fact that many of the facts may have originated from the use of one application among others makes it equally problematic for any of them to claim infringement on the terms of use. In my opinion this is just FUD.. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Accepting such restrictions based on sources that have no formal qualifications is imho hare brained. A good counter example is the use of OpenStreetMap after the Haiti disaster.. it is based on the same kinds of data that is put into doubt in a different context. Let me finish with a question, do you seriously consider that Google would sue the Wikimedia Foundation for it having geo dat ??? Thanks, GerardM On 1 April 2010 09:23, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski > wrote: > > Andre Engels wrote: > >> The thought process (note: I do not agree with it) goes like this: > >> * A map or a sattelite photograph is copyrighted material > >> * Taking a location from a map or a photograph is getting a derivative > >> work from it > >> * You are not allowed to make a derivative work from a copyrighted > source > > > > In US copyright law, "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or > > more pre-existing works". Since a pair of coordinates is not a work, it > > can not be a derivative work, even if it is based upon one or more > > pre-existing works. > > > > As I said, the selection of these coordinates is a work, and if you > dont have any image available you cannot do so. > What is the contract between you and google to use this data? Are you > sure that you are allowed to just take the points and relicense them > under the CC-SA? > > The sat images are not 100% facts, they are just one point of view. > and just using one single source of information is not a good idea. > Even one point may not be a problem, but if you select all the > interesting points then you run into issues of collections and > databases. > > I think the argument "points are facts" is too simple, we need to > understand where these points come from. > > mike > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:00 AM, wrote: > In a message dated 4/1/2010 12:24:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > > >> As I said, the selection of these coordinates is a work, and if you >> dont have any image available you cannot do so. >> What is the contract between you and google to use this data? Are you >> sure that you are allowed to just take the points and relicense them >> under the CC-SA? >> >> The sat images are not 100% facts, they are just one point of view. >> and just using one single source of information is not a good idea. >> Even one point may not be a problem, but if you select all the >> interesting points then you run into issues of collections and >> databases. >> >> I think the argument "points are facts" is too simple, we need to >> understand where these points come from. >> >> mike > > > _- > > Mike your argument rambles about. Yes that is true. There are many issues to cover here. We should take our time and go through the issues. > Citing a fact is not creating nor denying a copyright claim at all, and I > do not need anyone's permission to cite their work. Zero. And to gain access to this work? What about the contract that binds your usage of that work? It can go above and beyond copyright. > And whatever license they think they have with me is not applicable to me > citing their work as a source for something. So you can sign an NDA to gain access to some data and then go about citing it? You can just take any map data you have any access to at all and copy points out of it for wikipedia? I think no. The point is that there are no publicly available and reliable sources of free sat data. All useful ones are bound by strong contracts that prohibit may usages. For the openstreetmap project this is a big issue. > Citing is not copying. We are not citing here, is there any citation for the location information in WP? I dont see that people are citing their map sources, if they did we could at least check then. The location tag has no information on where the data came from and there is not any check on that. Citing a large portion of a database is also no longer a citation. At what point does it become a copy? Where is the boundry? I think it is not clear at all. > The images *might* be copyright, and I say might because I don't know from > where they got them. I have shown you how you can see the source of images in GE, and all the highres sat photos are copyrighted. There are no other sources unless you go out there and collect the data yourself. I have been working with umapped areas of the world, and I know how hard it is to get data for that. If we could just take the googleearth data and just trace over it, it would make our lives so much easier. So that is why I am pushing this issue here. > If their own source to an image is a U.S. government satellite image or > some other PD-released image, then they cannot copyright it. And again, the highres photos where you can see the individual buildings and items are not available, if they were, we would not even be having this dicussion. > The location points in the image, are not the image. The points > themselves, the lat/long points of some object like a bridge or whatever > you're doing, > are not copyrightable items. But the access to the google database of points and the images are restricted by a terms of usage take away more rights than just plain copyright law. By using the service you agree to the terms of service. first you need to get access to the image, then it needs to be placed on the map, then you need to identify and name the features. All of these things require creative human effort, and all of them are subjective and can be wrong. None of those things are "facts" they are interpretations of things and need to be treated with a degree of error. You cannot bet your life on the locations in google earth. > Copyright implies an artistic creation of > something, not a slavish compilation of facts no matter in what form. The human effort here is to find the location from a sat image, it cannot be done by a computer very well. These are not slavish compilations of facts, but require higher brain functions. The collection of all the points on the map also create a collection that has protection. We are not talking about individual points, but what amounts to a mass export of data from google. Why does googemapmaker require that you grant them rights to your work if they can just take them anyway? > So please address one issue at a time. > You do not need to know where a point comes from, in order to use it free > of copyright restrictions. And what about 100k points that are all extracted from high resolution google maps? What if these points are all off by a certain degree? How can you say that a single source of data is correct? >You might *want* to know in order to *cite* your > source, but you can do that without the need
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
In a message dated 4/1/2010 12:24:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > As I said, the selection of these coordinates is a work, and if you > dont have any image available you cannot do so. > What is the contract between you and google to use this data? Are you > sure that you are allowed to just take the points and relicense them > under the CC-SA? > > The sat images are not 100% facts, they are just one point of view. > and just using one single source of information is not a good idea. > Even one point may not be a problem, but if you select all the > interesting points then you run into issues of collections and > databases. > > I think the argument "points are facts" is too simple, we need to > understand where these points come from. > > mike > _- Mike your argument rambles about. Citing a fact is not creating nor denying a copyright claim at all, and I do not need anyone's permission to cite their work. Zero. And whatever license they think they have with me is not applicable to me citing their work as a source for something. Citing is not copying. The images *might* be copyright, and I say might because I don't know from where they got them. If their own source to an image is a U.S. government satellite image or some other PD-released image, then they cannot copyright it. The location points in the image, are not the image. The points themselves, the lat/long points of some object like a bridge or whatever you're doing, are not copyrightable items. Copyright implies an artistic creation of something, not a slavish compilation of facts no matter in what form. So please address one issue at a time. You do not need to know where a point comes from, in order to use it free of copyright restrictions. You might *want* to know in order to *cite* your source, but you can do that without the need to care about copyright restrictions anyway. We constantly cite copyrighted sources in Wikipedia. We do not ask for permission to do so. We do not *copy* those sources, we cite them. Large difference there. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: >> Andre Engels wrote: >>> The thought process (note: I do not agree with it) goes like this: >>> * A map or a sattelite photograph is copyrighted material >>> * Taking a location from a map or a photograph is getting a derivative >>> work from it >>> * You are not allowed to make a derivative work from a copyrighted source >> In US copyright law, "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or >> more pre-existing works". Since a pair of coordinates is not a work, it >> can not be a derivative work, even if it is based upon one or more >> pre-existing works. > > As I said, the selection of these coordinates is a work, and if you > dont have any image available you cannot do so. Of course I can. I could go there and measure the coordinates, for example. > What is the contract between you and google to use this data? Are you I need no contract with anyone to use the data I create. > sure that you are allowed to just take the points and relicense them > under the CC-SA? Not only am I not allowed, it is impossible for anyone to allow or forbid it. > Even one point may not be a problem, but if you select all the > interesting points then you run into issues of collections and > databases. I don't think we will run out of interesting point to select any time soon... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Andre Engels wrote: >> The thought process (note: I do not agree with it) goes like this: >> * A map or a sattelite photograph is copyrighted material >> * Taking a location from a map or a photograph is getting a derivative >> work from it >> * You are not allowed to make a derivative work from a copyrighted source > > In US copyright law, "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or > more pre-existing works". Since a pair of coordinates is not a work, it > can not be a derivative work, even if it is based upon one or more > pre-existing works. > As I said, the selection of these coordinates is a work, and if you dont have any image available you cannot do so. What is the contract between you and google to use this data? Are you sure that you are allowed to just take the points and relicense them under the CC-SA? The sat images are not 100% facts, they are just one point of view. and just using one single source of information is not a good idea. Even one point may not be a problem, but if you select all the interesting points then you run into issues of collections and databases. I think the argument "points are facts" is too simple, we need to understand where these points come from. mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Andre Engels wrote: > The thought process (note: I do not agree with it) goes like this: > * A map or a sattelite photograph is copyrighted material > * Taking a location from a map or a photograph is getting a derivative > work from it > * You are not allowed to make a derivative work from a copyrighted source In US copyright law, "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works". Since a pair of coordinates is not a work, it can not be a derivative work, even if it is based upon one or more pre-existing works. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:49 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com > Additionally there is a video talk from the SoTM 08 from Ed Parsons on > this topic > http://vimeo.com/6751141 > Ed Parsons: "What Map Maker is / is not" at SOTM08 Additionally, please see this blog post , it is even more relevant to our discussion. http://www.edparsons.com/2009/09/liberating-your-my-maps-data/ please see the comments thread in there. Another point my OSM friends made is about non free image policy on WP, there are many rules about using copyrighted photos. These strict policies should be applied to maps and map data as well. How can you be so strict on citations, on photos, but not on locations and map data. Are google earth points really a fact or are they an point of view? A sat photo is a point of view, way up in the sky and a very expensive and biased one. How can the neutral point of view be upheld if you are taking your data from only one source, just because it is easy to do? Google is careful to point out that you should not bet your life on their maps, and that they may contain errors. I think that this argument about locations be facts needs to be reviewed as well, because they are not 100% facts. Another issue is of location points, if you are making an article, then you also have to cite your sources. Just taking from one source is always one sided. In the case of positions, taking from only google who owns the highres photos is questionable. How do you know that this location is correct? What if the single source of the data (where the usage is questionable) is also wrong? How does that fit into the wikipedia policy? thanks, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > Mike, > > Thank you for starting this thread. The most important point, from my > perspective, is that the policies on OSM and Wikipedia are not > compatible, in a way that makes geodata from Wikipedia time-consuming > or impossible for some OSM editors to use. > > We should certainly see how we can align policies about maps and map > data so that work isn't duplicated or wasted. If in the process we > discover that OSM standards are stricter than copyright demands, or > that WP standards are more lax than they should be, we may be able to > correct those points. Exactly, that is my point. I just want some clarity and some direction on this. I am a big proponent of wikipedia and I would love to see a closer cooperation between them. Some of my osm friends have given me a tip, the point is that the google maps are not about US copyright law , but also about european database law, and more importantly about contract laws. Google payed $500 Million for the exclusive usage of geoeye-1 sat photos, and they cover the publication and usage of these photos by CONTRACT LAW, and click through terms of service. You should read this blog about this topic as well, and the thousands of comments http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 Additionally there is a video talk from the SoTM 08 from Ed Parsons on this topic http://vimeo.com/6751141 Ed Parsons: "What Map Maker is / is not" at SOTM08 Thanks for your interesting responses, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Mike, Thank you for starting this thread. The most important point, from my perspective, is that the policies on OSM and Wikipedia are not compatible, in a way that makes geodata from Wikipedia time-consuming or impossible for some OSM editors to use. We should certainly see how we can align policies about maps and map data so that work isn't duplicated or wasted. If in the process we discover that OSM standards are stricter than copyright demands, or that WP standards are more lax than they should be, we may be able to correct those points. SJ On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:25 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:04 PM, wrote: >> In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: >> >> >>> The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high >>> quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those >>> positions for many of the locations and they are only available from >>> non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them >>> being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not >>> usable for openstreetmap.>> >> >> I'm fairly sure you're wrong about the copyrightability of "high quality >> satellite images". Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't >> own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? My suspicion is >> that these are free images, they are merely rehosting, and so not >> copyrightable. > > I have been looking to purchase sat images for usage in tracing for osm. > It is not possible to purchase images that you can share with other > people in general. Even if you have the rights to trace and extract > vector information. So they must have a special deal on that imagery. > We dont know what license they have and what rights, it is pretty > simple. > > The source of google images you can see pretty easily in google > earth, just turn on all the "more" layer, you will see each image and > where it comes from. It is the same data used in google maps. > > The good imagery is from digitalglobe, geoeye and spot for the area > that i am interested in, > for example we are working on mapping the city of shkoder, in google > earth, you can click on the area > http://archive.digitalglobe.com/archive/showBrowse.php?catID=1010010001E43801 > > But the point is, even if google gets these rights, it does not mean > they have to give them to us. > > The digiglobe allows for some users the right to create vector traces > from the data, but does not mean google gives us these rights. > > http://nsidc.org/data/barrow/digitalglobe_license_form.html > . DERIVED WORKS. Derived works containing imagery data from the > Products are covered by this License. Derived works that do not > contain imagery data from the Products are not covered by this > License. For example a vector map (features, buildings, waterlines, > classification) derived from a Basic Product is outside of this > license. > > mike > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM, James Alexander wrote: > I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big > issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many > people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The > locations themselves is what we have decided are facts and therefore > copyrightable and I would think that openstreetmap should both be able to > use those and should use those. I don't totally understand the thought > process behind not allowing them to use actual geo locations from wikipedia. The thought process (note: I do not agree with it) goes like this: * A map or a sattelite photograph is copyrighted material * Taking a location from a map or a photograph is getting a derivative work from it * You are not allowed to make a derivative work from a copyrighted source -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
>> >> >> I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in >> question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map >> is "absurdity" is itself wrong. >> >> -Dan >> > If I'm not mistaken, the thread is not about the copyrightability of > maps themselves, but the copyrightability of location data pertaining > to digital maps, i.e. the very "non-pictoral fact compilations" > mentioned in the statement you provided. > > - -- > Cary Bass > Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation It may have started off that way, but my impression was it quickly became "All maps are free". That may have been a misinterpretation of GerardM's post. My broader point is that the situation is not entirely black and white. Blanket statements that "all X can never be done" are a bit dangerous to make. -Dan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:04 PM, wrote: > In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > > >> The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high >> quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those >> positions for many of the locations and they are only available from >> non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them >> being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not >> usable for openstreetmap.>> > > I'm fairly sure you're wrong about the copyrightability of "high quality > satellite images". Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't > own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? My suspicion is > that these are free images, they are merely rehosting, and so not > copyrightable. I have been looking to purchase sat images for usage in tracing for osm. It is not possible to purchase images that you can share with other people in general. Even if you have the rights to trace and extract vector information. So they must have a special deal on that imagery. We dont know what license they have and what rights, it is pretty simple. The source of google images you can see pretty easily in google earth, just turn on all the "more" layer, you will see each image and where it comes from. It is the same data used in google maps. The good imagery is from digitalglobe, geoeye and spot for the area that i am interested in, for example we are working on mapping the city of shkoder, in google earth, you can click on the area http://archive.digitalglobe.com/archive/showBrowse.php?catID=1010010001E43801 But the point is, even if google gets these rights, it does not mean they have to give them to us. The digiglobe allows for some users the right to create vector traces from the data, but does not mean google gives us these rights. http://nsidc.org/data/barrow/digitalglobe_license_form.html . DERIVED WORKS. Derived works containing imagery data from the Products are covered by this License. Derived works that do not contain imagery data from the Products are not covered by this License. For example a vector map (features, buildings, waterlines, classification) derived from a Basic Product is outside of this license. mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
In a message dated 3/31/2010 2:08:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, pbeaude...@wikimedia.org writes: > I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :) >>> > -- You are *taking* the picture however, with a mechanical device while you are excersizing creativity over it's content. It's your creativity that creates the copyrightable image, not who owns the mechanism. That's not the case with Google satellite images. There is no creativity involved. However this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth#Copyright seems to give another alternative using a public domain database of images. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM, wrote: >> In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: >> >> >>> (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; >>> >>> ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is >>> equivalent to such a mass import.>> >> Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder >> over-extends their claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides >> these exact same lat/long points. If you're concerned than use >> them. > > I have imported all the geonames for the areas that I am interested > in. That is not the issue. > > The issue is the location of things that are only visible using > high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those > positions for many of the locations and they are only available > from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem > with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in > effect not usable for openstreetmap. > > Now once you start to include points from google mapmaker it even > gets more interesting. > > The content that is not available freely are things like business > listings, touristic points of interest, locations of interesting > buildings etc. I am sure there are a large number of those points > that are not available from any free source, except to go there > with a gps and record the location itself. > > I think the best thing would be for wikipedia to really think hard > about this, and to make a policy that ensures the locations and > maps are also free from copyright issues so that we can use the > information in osm. Given the incredible user base, you might be > able to collect more unique points and have the truly usable. If > wikipedia were to call out to people to do some real mapping work > and not just copying points out of questionable sources, it would > be a great benefit to the total human knowledge. > > thanks, > > mike Use of Google Maps website to derive data does not convey copyrightability. That would be like saying that Adobe has copyright of a graphic design you created in Photoshop, wouldn't it? Cary -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuzuhYACgkQyQg4JSymDYndtwCfUFduLVHh2WGq7oiT0IpdzTy6 8PgAmwTwfhXguPstBCMWHZbU7BRFnd7a =NziO -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Mar 31, 2010, at 4:04 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't > own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high > quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those > positions for many of the locations and they are only available from > non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them > being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not > usable for openstreetmap.>> I'm fairly sure you're wrong about the copyrightability of "high quality satellite images". Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? My suspicion is that these are free images, they are merely rehosting, and so not copyrightable. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM, wrote: > In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > > >> (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; >> >> ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to >> such a mass import.>> > > Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their > claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long > points. If you're concerned than use them. I have imported all the geonames for the areas that I am interested in. That is not the issue. The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those positions for many of the locations and they are only available from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not usable for openstreetmap. Now once you start to include points from google mapmaker it even gets more interesting. The content that is not available freely are things like business listings, touristic points of interest, locations of interesting buildings etc. I am sure there are a large number of those points that are not available from any free source, except to go there with a gps and record the location itself. I think the best thing would be for wikipedia to really think hard about this, and to make a policy that ensures the locations and maps are also free from copyright issues so that we can use the information in osm. Given the incredible user base, you might be able to collect more unique points and have the truly usable. If wikipedia were to call out to people to do some real mapping work and not just copying points out of questionable sources, it would be a great benefit to the total human knowledge. thanks, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
The use of the google maps (and other copyrighted maps) are restricted and derivatives of those maps similarly restricted. However what the actual geo points that you may get from those systems are not restricted (because they are not copyrightable). It is an understandable confusion to be honest, they understandably try to claim copyright over any derivative they possibly can, the fact remains In many ways them attempting to claim copyright over any derivative work isn't a problem (in this regard) because they just can't claim copyright over those points. Well they can CLAIM whatever they want but a copyright claim on the geo points is useless, as W.J said you can also get them from USGS or other sources if you'd prefer but I wouldn't be worried about it (and I don't think we should change our stance on it). The issue of being worried about actual maps being uploaded under the wrong license is completely understandable and a separate issue, I know I've nominated at least a couple that I found to be from a source that wasn't free and is definitly something we need to be watchful for. I do know though that there are alot up there that are based on free USGS maps and the like that ARE legitimate (though they should say where they are derived from. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one :) On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:29 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Now some background : > Today, I found a map of Albania with no sources mentioned , and > currently I am working on mapping Albania. That is why I bring this > up. With all these maps in wikipedia, how can the authors possible be > the creators of the whole map, there are very few cases of maps that > are usable under a creative commons sharealike license, and wikipedia > seems to have many of them that might be infringing. > > About the point extraction, > I started to extract points months ago to import into OSM, but I > stopped because of concerns about importing from google data. > > Now on the issue is that of derived works and tracing, feature extraction. > > let me quote wikipedia on this: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth > Currently, every image created from Google Earth using satellite data > provided by Google Earth is a copyrighted map. Any derivative from > Google Earth is made from copyrighted data which, under United States > Copyright Law, may not be used except under the licenses Google > provides. > > > On the the other side , may of the geoeye licenses who provide > information to google maps have this clause: > http://gs.mdacorporation.com/products/sensor/irs/GeoEyeEULATier2007.pdf > Other Derived Works (vector extraction, classification, etc.) have no > restrictions on use and distribution. Reduced resolution data sets > (RRDS) with ratios of 16:1 or higher shall have no restrictions on use > and distribution, but shall contain the copyright markings. > > The google maps TOS: > http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_maps.html > > 2. Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written > authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of > particular Content), you must not: > (a) access or use the Products or any Content through any technology > or means other than those provided in the Products, or through other > explicitly authorized means Google may designate (such as through the > Google Maps/Google Earth APIs); > > > (b) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content > or any part thereof; > > --- Well we are copying the location of items from google. > > (c) redistribute, sublicense, rent, publish, sell, assign, lease, > market, transfer, or otherwise make the Products or Content available > to third parties; > > (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; > > ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to > such a mass import. > > (f) delete, obscure, or in any manner alter any warning, notice > (including but not limited to any copyright or other proprietary > rights notice), or link that appears in the Products or the Content; > or > (g) use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or > applications for or in connection with (i) real time navigation or > route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route > guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's > sensor-enabled device; or (ii) any systems or functions for automatic > or autonomous control of vehicle behavior. > > --- So the navigation functions from openstreetmap coupled with points > of interest from wikipedia could fall under that. > > > So, I think that the usage of the google maps is very restricted and > we should loo
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > (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; > > ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to > such a mass import.>> Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their claimed rights. Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long points. If you're concerned than use them. Start here on my page of genealogy tools http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources Near the top there's a link to the USGS called "Find a Town" which takes you here http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=127:1:1089405488282263 You can look for more than just "towns", for example airports, cemeteries, creeks, whatever. For example look for Baptist in Arkansas, Hempstead County and you get eighteen entries with latitude and longitude for the Baptist churches. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Now some background : Today, I found a map of Albania with no sources mentioned , and currently I am working on mapping Albania. That is why I bring this up. With all these maps in wikipedia, how can the authors possible be the creators of the whole map, there are very few cases of maps that are usable under a creative commons sharealike license, and wikipedia seems to have many of them that might be infringing. About the point extraction, I started to extract points months ago to import into OSM, but I stopped because of concerns about importing from google data. Now on the issue is that of derived works and tracing, feature extraction. let me quote wikipedia on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth Currently, every image created from Google Earth using satellite data provided by Google Earth is a copyrighted map. Any derivative from Google Earth is made from copyrighted data which, under United States Copyright Law, may not be used except under the licenses Google provides. On the the other side , may of the geoeye licenses who provide information to google maps have this clause: http://gs.mdacorporation.com/products/sensor/irs/GeoEyeEULATier2007.pdf Other Derived Works (vector extraction, classification, etc.) have no restrictions on use and distribution. Reduced resolution data sets (RRDS) with ratios of 16:1 or higher shall have no restrictions on use and distribution, but shall contain the copyright markings. The google maps TOS: http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_maps.html 2. Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not: (a) access or use the Products or any Content through any technology or means other than those provided in the Products, or through other explicitly authorized means Google may designate (such as through the Google Maps/Google Earth APIs); (b) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof; --- Well we are copying the location of items from google. (c) redistribute, sublicense, rent, publish, sell, assign, lease, market, transfer, or otherwise make the Products or Content available to third parties; (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; ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to such a mass import. (f) delete, obscure, or in any manner alter any warning, notice (including but not limited to any copyright or other proprietary rights notice), or link that appears in the Products or the Content; or (g) use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with (i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device; or (ii) any systems or functions for automatic or autonomous control of vehicle behavior. --- So the navigation functions from openstreetmap coupled with points of interest from wikipedia could fall under that. So, I think that the usage of the google maps is very restricted and we should look into this more. thanks, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Hoi. The facts harvested from Wikipedia have to be compiled in order to be used in an overlay. The format of the overlay may be determined by the application that uses such an overlay. The process of creating such an overlay however is mechanical, slavish, it has no relation whatsoever with the map it is used upon either pictorial or photographic. The same data can be used to generate an overlay for another map application. It would be created in a similar mechanical, slavish way. The notion that the facts used in such a way are copyrighted because they are used as an overlay on something pictorial or photographic is unlikely to hold. Thanks, GerardM On 31 March 2010 22:12, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > (This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) > > Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated > significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a > map, particularly one that involves "inherent pictorial or photographic > nature". > > "It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject > matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about > geographic relationships, and the "accuracy" of this presentation, with its > utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most > other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into > pictorial or graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, > and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, > maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations A map > does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is > central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial > form central to its nature." > > See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). > http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 > > > I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but > a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is "absurdity" is > itself wrong. > > -Dan > > > On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > > > > > >> In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items > >> based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from > >> geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what > >> is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. > >> Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted > material.>> > > > > Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and > > latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position" > is > > copyrightable? > > > > Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the > map, > > as an entirety is copyrightable. > > > > W.J. > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Sorry. they are facts and therefore NOT copyrightable. On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, James Alexander wrote: > I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big > issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many > people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The > locations themselves is what we have decided are facts and therefore > copyrightable and I would think that openstreetmap should both be able to > use those and should use those. I don't totally understand the thought > process behind not allowing them to use actual geo locations from wikipedia. > > James Alexander > james.alexan...@rochester.edu > jameso...@gmail.com > 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one > :) > > > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > >> (This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) >> >> Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated >> significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a >> map, particularly one that involves "inherent pictorial or photographic >> nature". >> >> "It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject >> matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about >> geographic relationships, and the "accuracy" of this presentation, with its >> utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most >> other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into >> pictorial or graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, >> and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, >> maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations A map >> does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is >> central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial >> form central to its nature." >> >> See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). >> http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 >> >> >> I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but >> a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is "absurdity" is >> itself wrong. >> >> -Dan >> >> >> On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> >> > In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, >> > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: >> > >> > >> >> In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items >> >> based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from >> >> geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what >> >> is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. >> >> Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted >> material.>> >> > >> > Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and >> > latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position" >> is >> > copyrightable? >> > >> > Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the >> map, >> > as an entirety is copyrightable. >> > >> > W.J. >> > ___ >> > foundation-l mailing list >> > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The locations themselves is what we have decided are facts and therefore copyrightable and I would think that openstreetmap should both be able to use those and should use those. I don't totally understand the thought process behind not allowing them to use actual geo locations from wikipedia. James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one :) On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote: > (This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) > > Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated > significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a > map, particularly one that involves "inherent pictorial or photographic > nature". > > "It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject > matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about > geographic relationships, and the "accuracy" of this presentation, with its > utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most > other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into > pictorial or graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, > and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, > maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations A map > does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is > central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial > form central to its nature." > > See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). > http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 > > > I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but > a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is "absurdity" is > itself wrong. > > -Dan > > > On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > > > > > >> In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items > >> based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from > >> geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what > >> is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. > >> Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted > material.>> > > > > Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and > > latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position" > is > > copyrightable? > > > > Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the > map, > > as an entirety is copyrightable. > > > > W.J. > > ___ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dan Rosenthal wrote: > (This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) > > Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated > significantly differently from the act of creation and > determination of a map, particularly one that involves "inherent > pictorial or photographic nature". > > "It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their > subject matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present > information about geographic relationships, and the "accuracy" of > this presentation, with its utilitarian aspects, is the reason most > maps are made and sold. Unlike most other factual compilations, > however, maps translate this subject-matter into pictorial or > graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, and > not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright > protection, maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact > compilations A map does not present objective reality; just as > a photograph's pictorial form is central to its nature, so a map > transforms reality into a unique pictorial form central to its > nature." > > See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). > http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 > > > I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in > question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map > is "absurdity" is itself wrong. > > -Dan > If I'm not mistaken, the thread is not about the copyrightability of maps themselves, but the copyrightability of location data pertaining to digital maps, i.e. the very "non-pictoral fact compilations" mentioned in the statement you provided. - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuzrj8ACgkQyQg4JSymDYlH7QCgr1DgqtHsBTSwjTDXI9OqB+qS Y3UAn0a3klujZC32BwatqspcFE8WxOjP =yBeQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
(This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly one that involves "inherent pictorial or photographic nature". "It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about geographic relationships, and the "accuracy" of this presentation, with its utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into pictorial or graphic form Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations A map does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial form central to its nature." See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is "absurdity" is itself wrong. -Dan On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > > >> In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items >> based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from >> geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what >> is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. >> Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material.>> > > Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and > latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position" is > copyrightable? > > Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the map, > as an entirety is copyrightable. > > W.J. > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Hoi, In Wikipedia we have many subjects that have geo coordinates associated with them. They are facts. Facts cannot be copyrighted. When these facts are harvested by data mining Wikipedia, you do not have a derived work from what is the origin of these facts, you have a new collection of facts and as such people could attempt to copyright such a collection. Such a collection however is obvious and does not require any originality. Consequently a subsequent accumulation of facts may be slightly different and illustrated the absurdity of claiming a copyright on such a collection. I have been blogging about maps and Wikipedia recently, two applications were described; a map with references to Wikipedia articles and a map with Wikipedia articles looking for an illustration. In my opinion is a blanket prohibition of maps based on information of Wikipedia plain silly. Thanks, GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com On 31 March 2010 21:20, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > I am working alot on openstreetmap.org and there seems to be a big > difference in how the copyrights of the maps are handled in Wikipedia. > > In wikipedia you will find maps that have no real sources claimed, and > they are not checked. > People can just upload any and all maps that they somehow created > themselves, even if they are derived from works that clearly do not > allow a creativecommons sharealike processing of them. > > In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items > based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from > geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what > is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. > Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material. > > Why is this permitted and encouraged in wikipedia but forbidden in > openstreetmap? > Is there any chance of aligning the policies so that we can use the > map material in wikipedia for openstreetmap? > > Do you want to start enforcing stricter checking of the sources of maps? > > The idea is that Wikipedia is to host free knowledge, but what good is > this knowledge of the world (maps) if we cannot use it? > If wikipedia were to enforce the same standards for maps, there would > be very few maps available in it. > > thanks, > mike > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes: > In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items > based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from > geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what > is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. > Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material.>> Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position" is copyrightable? Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the map, as an entirety is copyrightable. W.J. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.
Hi there, I am working alot on openstreetmap.org and there seems to be a big difference in how the copyrights of the maps are handled in Wikipedia. In wikipedia you will find maps that have no real sources claimed, and they are not checked. People can just upload any and all maps that they somehow created themselves, even if they are derived from works that clearly do not allow a creativecommons sharealike processing of them. In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material. Why is this permitted and encouraged in wikipedia but forbidden in openstreetmap? Is there any chance of aligning the policies so that we can use the map material in wikipedia for openstreetmap? Do you want to start enforcing stricter checking of the sources of maps? The idea is that Wikipedia is to host free knowledge, but what good is this knowledge of the world (maps) if we cannot use it? If wikipedia were to enforce the same standards for maps, there would be very few maps available in it. thanks, mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
