Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tracing from Aerial Imagery
a recording (over 3 youtube videos) of Ed Parsons & Mapmaker can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/user/ikiyamaps On 8/1/08, SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has the recording of that session been made live? > > > > On 31 Jul 2008, at 17:14, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > Hi, > > > >this question is directed at those that were present during the > > questions session following Ed Parsons' talk at this year's SOTM. > > > > If I remember correctly, Ed had just explained that Google needed to > > buy > > extra "tracing licenses" for aerial imagery to be used in Map Maker, > > and > > that these licenses were more expensive than the ordinary "display > > licenses". > > > > Someone then said that Google Earth already has a built-in feature to > > trace from *any* Google imagery, and why that was allowed when Google > > didn't have those licenses. > > > > And in response Ed made a distinction that I had not heard in all > > those > > "aerieal imagery tracing" discussions. If I remember correctly, he > > said > > (more or less): As long as you trace something with which you have a > > personal relation - e.g. a bike route that you actually travelled, or > > the house that you live in - it's ok. It starts to become "not ok" > > only > > when you begin large-scale tracing of terrain that you have no > > personal > > relationship with. > > > > Question 1 - is that what Ed said? And question 2 - does it make > > sense, > > legally? And question 3 - so I am allowed to trace my house, and my > > neighbour's, and my workplace, and the bakery I visit every morning, > > and > > my birthplace, and my parent's house...? > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > -- > > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" > > E008°23'33" > > > > ___ > > legal-talk mailing list > > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk > > > > > Best > > Steve > > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tracing from Aerial Imagery
Lauri Hahne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 2008/8/5 Gustav Foseid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > - In addition to protection as individual photographs, the database of the > > photographs has database protection. The traces (KMZz) would, however, not > > be part of the database and not be protected as a database. Even all traces > > would not be a substantial part of a database consisting of photographs. > > Sorry to resurrect such an old discussion but I only found it today. > > The EU database laws protect parts of databases which are significant > in either quantitatively (amount) or qualitatively (what it is). So > IMHO doing some random drawings from a world-wide or national database > of aerial images should be ok but doing a trace of a village wouldn't > be ok as it matches the criteria of being qualitatively major part > even if it isn't a major part of the database when measured > quantitatively. So the next question is if an aerial image is something more than an image. You mean that if it is possible to interpret with bare eyes roads, lakes, buildings etc. from an image, then image itself is a road, lake and building database? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tracing from Aerial Imagery
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Liz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Gustav Foseid wrote: > > If the photographing or tracing involves creative work, something it > > probably does not, it would all be different. > > Deciding which is railway, which is road and which is canal on the aerial > photograph is intellectual work, so labelling of traces is separate work to > photographing and tracing. Copyright, generally, protects creative work, which is something slightly different from intellectual work. - Gustav ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tracing from Aerial Imagery
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008, Gustav Foseid wrote: > If the photographing or tracing involves creative work, something it > probably does not, it would all be different. Deciding which is railway, which is road and which is canal on the aerial photograph is intellectual work, so labelling of traces is separate work to photographing and tracing. Liz ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tracing from Aerial Imagery
On 1 Aug 2008, at 01:14, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Question 1 - is that what Ed said? And question 2 - does it make > sense, > legally? And question 3 - so I am allowed to trace my house, and my > neighbour's, and my workplace, and the bakery I visit every morning, > and > my birthplace, and my parent's house...? I think you remember it accurately. And I think you could publish all those things without a problem. It reminds me of similar discussions about UK postcodes and OSGB TOIDs: you can publish a small set of them relating to data you publish for your own arbitrary purposes. However attempts to integrate multiple individual projects into, for example, some kind of UK postcode lookup, or a "FreeStreepMap" project based on spidering and integrating thousands of KMZs, would breach terms. It's not so much "derived data" that's the problem (as small amounts are ok), but "derived utility". So going back to your various publishable tracings, it would be the intent to integrate the tracings of a whole community that would be problematic. No, not very satisfactory in terms of mathematical logic, but does anybody want a legal system that's as hackable as Internet Explorer? - L ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tracing from Aerial Imagery
> Hi, > > Question 1 - is that what Ed said? I believe that is in fact what he has said. It surprised me, because it leaves a lot of room for debate, and thats why... > And question 2 - does it make sense, > legally? ...I think this could be dangerous waters in a legal sense. I have been living in Amsterdam for 18 years, so you could argue that at least all the neighborhoods I've lived in, shopped in, visited close friends in and went to school in on a regular basis will be very familiar to me - which they actually are. This comprises roughly half of the city for which I'd for example know any street name just looking at an aerial photograph or a blind map. I use this knowledge on a day-to-day basis when OpenStreetMapping[1] - but how would this be acknowledged in the license Google supposedly has with their aerial imagery suppliers? [1] Of course, for anything I add or modify, I'll have the traces to back up that I've been there. > And question 3 - so I am allowed to trace my house, and my > neighbour's, and my workplace, and the bakery I visit every morning, > and > my birthplace, and my parent's house...? This remains a question for me as well. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Tracing from Aerial Imagery
Has the recording of that session been made live? On 31 Jul 2008, at 17:14, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > >this question is directed at those that were present during the > questions session following Ed Parsons' talk at this year's SOTM. > > If I remember correctly, Ed had just explained that Google needed to > buy > extra "tracing licenses" for aerial imagery to be used in Map Maker, > and > that these licenses were more expensive than the ordinary "display > licenses". > > Someone then said that Google Earth already has a built-in feature to > trace from *any* Google imagery, and why that was allowed when Google > didn't have those licenses. > > And in response Ed made a distinction that I had not heard in all > those > "aerieal imagery tracing" discussions. If I remember correctly, he > said > (more or less): As long as you trace something with which you have a > personal relation - e.g. a bike route that you actually travelled, or > the house that you live in - it's ok. It starts to become "not ok" > only > when you begin large-scale tracing of terrain that you have no > personal > relationship with. > > Question 1 - is that what Ed said? And question 2 - does it make > sense, > legally? And question 3 - so I am allowed to trace my house, and my > neighbour's, and my workplace, and the bakery I visit every morning, > and > my birthplace, and my parent's house...? > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" > E008°23'33" > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk > Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
