Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/9 Shaun McDonald : > It being out of date, or being geotagged wrongly. if it's outdated: it still might have been your last stay there, so that's no proof at all, geotagged wrongly would just be valid in case you don't know the area. I agree with Stefan deKonink: it's almost impossible to trace... cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Anthony wrote: > > By "license agreement" you mean the ToS? A ToS violation, which is not a > violation of copyright or database law, is between Google and the violator. > As long as OSM says "don't do it", and doesn't encourage violations, it > really doesn't matter to OSM if people listen or not. Hmm interesting. They would still issue a take-down notice, wouldn't they? And then take OSM to court (again, regardless of whether they would win)? If the objective is to avoid lawsuits, I'm not sure your suggestion is cautious enough. > In fact, it benefits them for us to do it if we in turn > give them permission to use our database to correct their data. Yup. Getting permission would be the best outcome IMHO. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Dan Karran wrote: > 2009/9/10 David Muir Sharnoff : > > Has anyone set a letter to Google's legal department asking for > > clarification or permission? > > I haven't asked their legal department, but Ed Parsons said in an > email yesterday (not sure if my post[1] about it got through to the > list?) that it's ok to check our facts, but anything more than that > (extracting/mass extracting of data) is not likely to be compliant > with their license agreement. As I see it, if their license agreement > prevents us doing it, then it's already ruled out, and it's not a > question of what copyright or database law says at that point. > By "license agreement" you mean the ToS? A ToS violation, which is not a violation of copyright or database law, is between Google and the violator. As long as OSM says "don't do it", and doesn't encourage violations, it really doesn't matter to OSM if people listen or not. On the other hand, a copyright or database law violation is a major problem for OSM, because as they collect, the database starts getting tainted and becomes unusable. Another issue is that the ToS is governed by local law. If Google wants to sue me for violating the ToS, they need to do so in the US. If the issue is copyright law or database law, on the other hand, they can sue in any/every jurisdiction in which the data is copied. I'm comfortable making my own decisions as to what I should or shouldn't do with regard to US law which doesn't affect the project. I'm perfectly willing to argue in court that it's unconscionable for Google to restrict me from using a Google Street View image to check whether or not I'm aloud to make a left hand turn on a certain street. I'm willing to argue that the ToS is a contract of adhesion and therefore should be interpreted in my favor when ambiguous. And I'm willing to argue that a violation of the ToS is a mere breach of contract and Google is entitled only to actual damages for any violation of it (and that the damages in this case is $0). It's only if my actions jeopardize the entire project that I'm going to ask for input on this list. It's only the copyright/database laws that I'm worried about. None of this has anything to do with permission, anyway. If Google's legal department gives permission, then it doesn't matter whether it's a violation of the ToS, they are permitting us something beyond the ToS. I'm not sure exactly what Google plans to do with Street View in the future. If all they want is to protect against someone else creating their own Street View, then they should have no concern about our "copying" of street names, turn restrictions, etc. In fact, it benefits them for us to do it if we in turn give them permission to use our database to correct their data. On the other hand, it's possible Google has long term plans to use Street View to create its own map data rather than rely on other people's. If that's the case, then we're probably out of luck - maybe in a few years it'll be feasible to make our own multiway camera to stick on our roofs. OSM does have a decent case to argue for Google letting us copy non-photographic information from GSV. Let us do that, or we'll create our own GSV and compete with you directly. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Dan Karran wrote: > 2009/9/10 David Muir Sharnoff : >> Has anyone set a letter to Google's legal department asking for >> clarification or permission? > > I haven't asked their legal department, but Ed Parsons said in an > email yesterday (not sure if my post[1] about it got through to the > list?) that it's ok to check our facts, but anything more than that > (extracting/mass extracting of data) is not likely to be compliant > with their license agreement. As I see it, if their license agreement > prevents us doing it, then it's already ruled out, and it's not a > question of what copyright or database law says at that point. > > If we want to be able to extract data as well then I'm pretty sure > we'd need a license to do so. > > [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-September/041758.html Here's my completely uneducated legal opinion (:P). Ed's reasoning hinges on the following Terms of Service extract, possibly originally from: http://maps.google.com/help/terms_maps.html " [ you must not ] 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" This says that we can't use Google Products to build the OSM database (which, in turn, would allow mass downloads/bulk feeds via the OSM API) if what has been entered into the OSM database with the help of Google Products consists of: 1. numerical latitude or longitude coordinates 2. imagery 3. visible map data For 1: as long as Google Products are not used to geolocate features (i.e. Google Products are not used to determine the latitude/longitude of OSM nodes/ways) *this doesn't apply* For 2: as long as the imagery itself isn't stored in OSM, *this doesn't apply* For 3: what qualifies as "visible map data"? If I look at a particular intersection and see a stop sign in Street View, does that constitute "visible map data"? I think not. If not, then *this doesn't apply*. I.e. It would then be OK to record the existence of the stop sign in OSM, as long as the geolocation is already known (e.g. from my own GPS trace, or existing OSM ways). Thoughts? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 David Muir Sharnoff : > Has anyone set a letter to Google's legal department asking for > clarification or permission? I haven't asked their legal department, but Ed Parsons said in an email yesterday (not sure if my post[1] about it got through to the list?) that it's ok to check our facts, but anything more than that (extracting/mass extracting of data) is not likely to be compliant with their license agreement. As I see it, if their license agreement prevents us doing it, then it's already ruled out, and it's not a question of what copyright or database law says at that point. If we want to be able to extract data as well then I'm pretty sure we'd need a license to do so. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-September/041758.html Cheers, Dan -- Dan Karran d...@karran.net www.dankarran.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On 10/09/2009 04:13, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > And since there are two sides to every dispute, you can > count on two differing legal opinions on the matter. Just like OSM then - actually I sometimes think there are more opinions on any topic than there are participants. > (I am a lawyer) Recruit that man immediately! (Was it wise to admit it?) Do you work in IP? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Thursday 10 Sep 2009 8:37:09 am John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/10 Anthony : > > I'm not sure what help a lawyer is going to be - they're not going to be > > able to guarantee you that much of anything is 100% (or 99.9%) safe in > > 100% (or 95%, weighted by user-base) of jurisdictions, especially not for > > free. As Richard says in the comments, "In the UK, as ever, the law is > > less clear-cut than in the US." The only way I can see this being > > reconciled is by getting explicit permission. > > Actually that's what a legal opinion is, you can use it in court, if > it gets that far, to show you sort out information before doing > something and a lawyer thought it would be ok based on his or her > interpretation of the law. I think only practising lawyers are able to > legally give legal opinions. a legal opinion has absolutely no legal value - one does not argue cases in court by waving legal opinions. The source of law is 1. custom 2. legislation 3. decisions of superior courts all a legal opinion does is 'if I do such and such a thing, what are the courts likely to decide if there is a dispute'. So even a layman can give a legal opinion - but he is less likely to predict the outcome than an experienced lawyer. And since there are two sides to every dispute, you can count on two differing legal opinions on the matter. (I am a lawyer) -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 Roy Wallace : > But being able to say "but lawyer X said we could!" in court will not > make you immune to lawsuits. Nonetheless, legal advice from a lawyer > would be great - John, any ideas on how to get this? It doesn't make you immune, but if you follow the legal advice it reduces the damages, in the case of OSM it would be very conservative opinions to try and prevent things from going to court, but still it would be the advice of a lawyer rather than the advice of what someone thinks the law might be. It would need to come from a lawyer in the UK or very very familiar with UK law, I don't know of any lawyers that would fit this criteria. > In any case, I agree with Anthony - the only way to *guarantee* > company X won't take you to court for doing Z - regardless of who > might win in court - is if company X gives you written permission to > do Z. The problem with that logic is they could still take you to court for the purposes of bankrupting you. Even if you are likely to win it will still take considerable legal resources to do so, and big companies use this as a tactic to kill off competition. > As Dave asked, "Has anyone sent a letter to Google's legal department > asking for clarification or permission?" Google, at least on > face-value, seem to be open-minded when it comes to open-source stuff, Only so far as it is of benefit to them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 1:07 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/10 Anthony : >> I'm not sure what help a lawyer is going to be - they're not going to be >> able to guarantee you that much of anything is 100% (or 99.9%) safe in 100% >> (or 95%, weighted by user-base) of jurisdictions, especially not for free. >> As Richard says in the comments, "In the UK, as ever, the law is less >> clear-cut than in the US." The only way I can see this being reconciled is >> by getting explicit permission. > > Actually that's what a legal opinion is, you can use it in court, if > it gets that far, to show you sort out information before doing > something and a lawyer thought it would be ok based on his or her > interpretation of the law. I think only practising lawyers are able to > legally give legal opinions. But being able to say "but lawyer X said we could!" in court will not make you immune to lawsuits. Nonetheless, legal advice from a lawyer would be great - John, any ideas on how to get this? In any case, I agree with Anthony - the only way to *guarantee* company X won't take you to court for doing Z - regardless of who might win in court - is if company X gives you written permission to do Z. As Dave asked, "Has anyone sent a letter to Google's legal department asking for clarification or permission?" Google, at least on face-value, seem to be open-minded when it comes to open-source stuff, and they have recently even acknowledged OSM's existence on an official blog (http://google-latlong.blogspot.com/2009/08/3-days-3-googlers-2-cpus-8-cores-google.html). Worth a try. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 Anthony : > I'm not sure what help a lawyer is going to be - they're not going to be > able to guarantee you that much of anything is 100% (or 99.9%) safe in 100% > (or 95%, weighted by user-base) of jurisdictions, especially not for free. > As Richard says in the comments, "In the UK, as ever, the law is less > clear-cut than in the US." The only way I can see this being reconciled is > by getting explicit permission. Actually that's what a legal opinion is, you can use it in court, if it gets that far, to show you sort out information before doing something and a lawyer thought it would be ok based on his or her interpretation of the law. I think only practising lawyers are able to legally give legal opinions. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:21 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/9/10 Roy Wallace : > > Richard's contribution was interesting though, and obviously does have > > a basis in law (http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100). > > > > Just because someone quotes legal cases doesn't mean it's legal > advice, I think OSM is to the point that it needs to seek pro-bono > legal advice on this and similar matters. > I'm not sure what help a lawyer is going to be - they're not going to be able to guarantee you that much of anything is 100% (or 99.9%) safe in 100% (or 95%, weighted by user-base) of jurisdictions, especially not for free. As Richard says in the comments, "In the UK, as ever, the law is less clear-cut than in the US." The only way I can see this being reconciled is by getting explicit permission. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 Roy Wallace : > Richard's contribution was interesting though, and obviously does have > a basis in law (http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100). > Just because someone quotes legal cases doesn't mean it's legal advice, I think OSM is to the point that it needs to seek pro-bono legal advice on this and similar matters. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:00 AM, John Smith wrote: > > If you already know a fact and use street view to confirm it, I can't > see how this can be copying since it's something you already know > about some place, nothing has been derived. Perhaps a lawyer would argue that if you need to/choose to "confirm" something, you did not, in fact, already "know" it. > On the other hand if you are pulling unknown information this could be > considered copying, but since it's also a fact not a collection of > information this is where proper legal advice is needed, rather than > geek opinions which have no basis in law. I'm going to take your own advice and stop conjecturing. I thought Richard's contribution was interesting though, and obviously does have a basis in law (http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 Anthony : > If the fact is binary (can turn left/can't turn left), then checking is > equal to copying, right? It seems there is 2 things in play here, 1 deriving information aka copying, 2 and simply a fact that is being stated. It seems to me most copyright questions will tend to err on the side of caution but this is someone's opinion and not a legal opinion, I wish there was a way to get proper legal advice than conjecture and non-lawyer legal opinions which are next to useless from what I've come to know of courts and what geeks think the law is/should be. If you already know a fact and use street view to confirm it, I can't see how this can be copying since it's something you already know about some place, nothing has been derived. On the other hand if you are pulling unknown information this could be considered copying, but since it's also a fact not a collection of information this is where proper legal advice is needed, rather than geek opinions which have no basis in law. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Has anyone set a letter to Google's legal department asking for clarification or permission? -Dave On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: >> >> Actually, there is some other, more practical arguments why such >> checking isn't healthy thing to do. First of all, it's still just >> another source, not field check. Second, it is quite interesting what >> happens when you *check* that name of the street you wrote down is >> wrong. Can you write down name in Google Street View? I guess it is >> copying. Fact copying, but nevertheless. Fact copying en masse = >> "substantial extraction". So it is still if you find name wrong, you >> theoretically can't copy name from GSV and still have to go outside >> and check it yourself. So it's a little self-defeating. > > If the fact is binary (can turn left/can't turn left), then checking is > equal to copying, right? > It'd definitely help when turning a single Tiger way into a dual > carriageway, to be able to use Google Street View rather than finding > someone willing to drive me around while I take pictures of every > intersection, or, I guess more realistically, just zooming in on the Yahoo > aerial and guessing. > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > > Actually, there is some other, more practical arguments why such > checking isn't healthy thing to do. First of all, it's still just > another source, not field check. Second, it is quite interesting what > happens when you *check* that name of the street you wrote down is > wrong. Can you write down name in Google Street View? I guess it is > copying. Fact copying, but nevertheless. Fact copying en masse = > "substantial extraction". So it is still if you find name wrong, you > theoretically can't copy name from GSV and still have to go outside > and check it yourself. So it's a little self-defeating. If the fact is binary (can turn left/can't turn left), then checking is equal to copying, right? It'd definitely help when turning a single Tiger way into a dual carriageway, to be able to use Google Street View rather than finding someone willing to drive me around while I take pictures of every intersection, or, I guess more realistically, just zooming in on the Yahoo aerial and guessing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Smith > wrote: > > > > Legal arguments aside, there is very few street signs I've seen on > > google street view that I can read anyway, most of them seem to be > > blurred out, either intentionally, due to motion blur or jpeg like > > artifacts. > > Sure, but this discussion is easily extended to other features visible > in the photos (e.g. stop signs :P). It'd be especially useful for checking for "no left turn" signs when the Yahoo aerial is inconclusive. But, umm, I wouldn't know, cause, umm, I've never done anything like that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/10 Roy Wallace : > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Smith wrote: >> >> Legal arguments aside, there is very few street signs I've seen on >> google street view that I can read anyway, most of them seem to be >> blurred out, either intentionally, due to motion blur or jpeg like >> artifacts. > > Sure, but this discussion is easily extended to other features visible > in the photos (e.g. stop signs :P). > I meant signs with names not actions :P I had no problem reading a UK sign so I guess it's probably because street signs here are similar looking to number plates, although I'm surprised google wasn't able to guage the height off the ground etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM, John Smith wrote: > > Legal arguments aside, there is very few street signs I've seen on > google street view that I can read anyway, most of them seem to be > blurred out, either intentionally, due to motion blur or jpeg like > artifacts. Sure, but this discussion is easily extended to other features visible in the photos (e.g. stop signs :P). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 10:06:07PM +0100, David Earl wrote: > we are potentially infringing the copyright of the map used to > geolocate it. This applies even to CCbySA photos gelocated on flickr > etc, unless they were located using OSM in the first place, or by > GPS. But there is no way to know this - right? I geolocate my photos using GPS, but use Flickr API functions to place geotag the photo so that it shows on the Flickr map. The location itself is thus not derived from their map, but there is no way to know that. Cheers, -- Sybren Stüvel http://stuvel.eu/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sybrenstuvel signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On 09/09/2009 12:07, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits "substantial >> extraction". >> >> Tom > > If someone starts to "copy" the photos themselves, yes you are right. > But here, we speak about reading a street sign on a picture, not > copying the picture. There's another aspect to this which I think rules out doing this: in order to be useful to us, the streetname has to be in a photo for which we know the location. That means it has been geolocated with respect to a map, which means the photo is itself a derived work. We are in effect using the copyrighted location, albeit indirectly, so whatever the situtation wrt the content of the photo, we are potentially infringing the copyright of the map used to geolocate it. This applies even to CCbySA photos gelocated on flickr etc, unless they were located using OSM in the first place, or by GPS. In StreetView they were presumably geolocated wrt a GPS, so that may, individually (but not collectively, for database reasons) just be a fact rather than a derivation. But as other people have said, it hardly matters as (a) we want to be not just clean, but squeaky clean, and (b) if someone with lots of money sues, it hardly matters what the true legal position is. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > If the photos are geocoded -- which SV's are -- then you are deriving > data from the whole product, both picture and location. This constitutes > a database. While the law on this may be a grey area, it's not worth our > while becoming the test case and jeopardising (geopardising?) the whole > project for relatively little gain. > > -- > Jonathan (Jonobennett) Yes, it's a database of photos, not a database of street signs on the photos (or a database of posters or a database of house numbers). And georeferences are only used to find the right photo. I could agree if you use the photo georefs to position OSM objects, but here you just read a street sign on the picture. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
David Muir Sharnoff wrote: > Perhaps the OSM database should be moved out of the EU to a location > that doesn't suffer from a Database Rights law.Extracting from > no-EU data source by people not in the EU would then be okay for sure. Great! Let us know when you've secured the funding for this move, and we'll start work on it. > Extending the Database Rights law to extracting turn restrictions > from Streetview is a stretch anyway: they turn restrictions aren't > part of the original data. If the photos are geocoded -- which SV's are -- then you are deriving data from the whole product, both picture and location. This constitutes a database. While the law on this may be a grey area, it's not worth our while becoming the test case and jeopardising (geopardising?) the whole project for relatively little gain. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Perhaps the OSM database should be moved out of the EU to a location that doesn't suffer from a Database Rights law.Extracting from no-EU data source by people not in the EU would then be okay for sure. Extending the Database Rights law to extracting turn restrictions from Streetview is a stretch anyway: they turn restrictions aren't part of the original data. -Dave On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan >> Bennett wrote: >>> >>> There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, >>> and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another >>> database. >> >> Is there a difference between >> 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and >> 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? >> >> Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while >> the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? > > Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits "substantial > extraction". > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://www.compton.nu/ > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Noticed in the archives[1] that my mail was chopped off, so resending with some different characters around Ed's email: [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-September/041753.html 2009/9/9 Dan Karran : > 2009/9/9 Ian Dees : > >> Back in March, Ed Parsons pointed out [0] that since StreetView images are >> Google-owned, if someone asked nicely-enough we could get them to give us a >> license to explicitly map based on the streetview images (similar to the >> explicit license we have with Yahoo). > > I'm not sure if anybody took this further with Ed or with Google back > around the time of that tweet, but I sent him a quick email earlier to > see what the status was here, and what we would be allowed to use > Street View images for, if anything. > > His response was basically that it's fine to check our existing facts > using the imagery from Street View, but it's not allowed - due to > their license - to do any mass data extraction from the images that > would then be republished. > > This is what Ed said: > -- > This remains a grey area of ip law, if it is the case of checking from > the photography itself facts such as the name of a building, that > would be ok.. there are some key points in the Terms of Service which > are useful.. > > "..you may not use Google Maps in a manner which gives you or any > other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of numerical > latitude and longitude co-ordinates." > > This is really saying you are not allowed to do mass tracing of > features that are then made available to third parties. > -- > > I came across a situation the other day where I was adding the address > details of a pub[1] to the map and noticed that the street name (Edis > St, from their website) didn't match up with the name of the street in > OSM[2] (Edith St). > > From what Ed's suggested, Street View could probably have been used to > confirm the local name[3] (ignore the armed police [4] ;) - to see > whether the pub had a typo on their site, or we had a typo in our > database - without having to go out and re-survey. > > > [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/265649578 > [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8400167 > [3] http://tr.im/yfAo > [4] http://tr.im/yfAU > > > Cheers, > Dan > ps - I'm not a lawyer :) -- Dan Karran d...@karran.net www.dankarran.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/9 Ian Dees : > Back in March, Ed Parsons pointed out [0] that since StreetView images are > Google-owned, if someone asked nicely-enough we could get them to give us a > license to explicitly map based on the streetview images (similar to the > explicit license we have with Yahoo). I'm not sure if anybody took this further with Ed or with Google back around the time of that tweet, but I sent him a quick email earlier to see what the status was here, and what we would be allowed to use Street View images for, if anything. His response was basically that it's fine to check our existing facts using the imagery from Street View, but it's not allowed - due to their license - to do any mass data extraction from the images that would then be republished. >From Ed: === This remains a grey area of ip law, if it is the case of checking from the photography itself facts such as the name of a building, that would be ok.. there are some key points in the Terms of Service which are useful.. "..you may not use Google Maps in a manner which gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of numerical latitude and longitude co-ordinates." This is really saying you are not allowed to do mass tracing of features that are then made available to third parties. === I came across a situation the other day where I was adding the address details of a pub[1] to the map and noticed that the street name (Edis St, from their website) didn't match up with the name of the street in OSM[2] (Edith St). >From what Ed's suggested, Street View could probably have been used to confirm the local name[3] (ignore the armed police [4] ;) - to see whether the pub had a typo on their site, or we had a typo in our database - without having to go out and re-survey. [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/265649578 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/8400167 [3] http://tr.im/yfAo [4] http://tr.im/yfAU Cheers, Dan ps - I'm not a lawyer :) -- Dan Karran d...@karran.net www.dankarran.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/9 Pieren : > If someone starts to "copy" the photos themselves, yes you are right. > But here, we speak about reading a street sign on a picture, not > copying the picture. Legal arguments aside, there is very few street signs I've seen on google street view that I can read anyway, most of them seem to be blurred out, either intentionally, due to motion blur or jpeg like artifacts. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Obligatory IANAL disclaimer. Let's be honest, we would like to avoid it as much as possible not because copyright law is in fact in our side (*checking* facts with other, commercial sources IS NOT copying and IS NOT covered by copyright law, period). We want to avoid just because we *think* (suspect/are afraid of) that law is like Lego - good lawer will combine different aspects of situation and will get out rulling which say that such data is actually derative work. Actually, there is some other, more practical arguments why such checking isn't healthy thing to do. First of all, it's still just another source, not field check. Second, it is quite interesting what happens when you *check* that name of the street you wrote down is wrong. Can you write down name in Google Street View? I guess it is copying. Fact copying, but nevertheless. Fact copying en masse = "substantial extraction". So it is still if you find name wrong, you theoretically can't copy name from GSV and still have to go outside and check it yourself. So it's a little self-defeating. just my really humble thoughts, Peter. 2009/9/9 Pieren : > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> On 09/09/09 11:55, Tom Hughes wrote: >>> On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > > There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, > and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another > database. Is there a difference between 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? >>> >>> Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits "substantial >>> extraction". >> >> I just realised that I misread your question slightly... >> >> The correct answer is of course that on their own there is no difference >> between the two. >> >> The problem arises once you copy a few facts, then I copy a few, then >> Fred copies a few, then Jim, then... At some point we have, between us, >> copied a "substantial extract" at which point the database right kicks in. > > The example of a newspaper is a bad example. You cannot copy a text > writen by somebody else. This is because it is his own creation. If > you write yourself an article, It is allowed to mention some parts of > an other article, small extracts are allowed as long as they are not > "substantial" in which case you leave the right to mention a text. > It is the same about a photo. You cannot copy a photo or a part of a > photo because the photo itself is a creation from the guy how took the > picture. But the street sign on the photo doesn't belong to the > photograph, neither the photograph cannot say "this street sign is my > property now because I took a picture of it". > > Pieren > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
2009/9/9 Pieren > > > The example of a newspaper is a bad example. You cannot copy a text > writen by somebody else. This is because it is his own creation. If > you write yourself an article, It is allowed to mention some parts of > an other article, small extracts are allowed as long as they are not > "substantial" in which case you leave the right to mention a text. > For newspaper, it is even more complicated at least in the US due to the "hot news doctrine". This is a very old one, but some newspaper with the appearance of the Internet are mulling attacking some people. There was a very interesting article a few month I think in the NY Times (can't find the link) about it. To get more information, you can always read the following wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._Associated_Press Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 09/09/09 11:55, Tom Hughes wrote: >> On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan >>> Bennett wrote: There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another database. >>> >>> Is there a difference between >>> 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and >>> 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? >>> >>> Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while >>> the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? >> >> Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits "substantial >> extraction". > > I just realised that I misread your question slightly... > > The correct answer is of course that on their own there is no difference > between the two. > > The problem arises once you copy a few facts, then I copy a few, then > Fred copies a few, then Jim, then... At some point we have, between us, > copied a "substantial extract" at which point the database right kicks in. The example of a newspaper is a bad example. You cannot copy a text writen by somebody else. This is because it is his own creation. If you write yourself an article, It is allowed to mention some parts of an other article, small extracts are allowed as long as they are not "substantial" in which case you leave the right to mention a text. It is the same about a photo. You cannot copy a photo or a part of a photo because the photo itself is a creation from the guy how took the picture. But the street sign on the photo doesn't belong to the photograph, neither the photograph cannot say "this street sign is my property now because I took a picture of it". Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Pieren wrote: > First, all I have seen here are just opinions. > [...] > There are some questions here : is the content of a photo > copyrighted like the photo itself ? May I humbly refer people to http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100 which deals principally with aerial photography, not StreetView, but many of the principles are the same. I am not a lawyer... but I do know how to find the right book in the law library. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Google-Street-View-copyright-question-tp25354298p25362968.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On 09/09/09 12:07, Pieren wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits "substantial >> extraction". > > If someone starts to "copy" the photos themselves, yes you are right. > But here, we speak about reading a street sign on a picture, not > copying the picture. Which has exactly what to do with the question I answered, which concerned copying facts from databases? As it happens there is a problem with my answer which I'm about to correct, but it isn't anything to do with photos. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On 09/09/09 11:55, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan >> Bennett wrote: >>> >>> There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, >>> and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another >>> database. >> >> Is there a difference between >> 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and >> 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? >> >> Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while >> the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? > > Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits "substantial > extraction". I just realised that I misread your question slightly... The correct answer is of course that on their own there is no difference between the two. The problem arises once you copy a few facts, then I copy a few, then Fred copies a few, then Jim, then... At some point we have, between us, copied a "substantial extract" at which point the database right kicks in. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits "substantial > extraction". > > Tom If someone starts to "copy" the photos themselves, yes you are right. But here, we speak about reading a street sign on a picture, not copying the picture. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > no - for all the reasons already mentioned. It is not ok to use it for > anything whatsoever to do with OSM. First, all I have seen here are just opinions. Second, copyright laws and definition of "derivative work" depends on the country you are. And StreetView is present in many countries now. There are some questions here : is the content of a photo copyrighted like the photo itself ? And reading a street sign on a image a copyright infringement ? For both, I would say 'no'. What is copyrighted is the photo itself, not its content. That's why you cannot draw on the top of a satellite picture. Your work is derivated from the picture, not from the earth. Did Google payed copyright owners before taking pictures of houses facades, streets, monuments, posters, human bodies, etc ? No. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On 09/09/09 11:46, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan > Bennett wrote: >> >> There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, >> and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another >> database. > > Is there a difference between > 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and > 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? > > Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while > the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? Because (in the EU) Database Right kicks in and prohibits "substantial extraction". Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > > There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, > and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another > database. Is there a difference between 1) using one fact from a newspaper article to use in another database, and 2) using one fact from a database to use in another database? Can you clarify exactly what that difference is why one is legal while the other is not (if that is indeed what you're implying)? > It's the same principle that allows Wikipedia to get away with > getting co-ordinates for individual articles by taking them from a map, > and us doing the same for every point of interest on the map. Can you clarify what you mean, please? What is legal, what is illegal, and why? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Anthony wrote: > Eh, I'd take on Google pro se (or with the help of free EFF lawyers or > the like) over the issue of the ToS, and based on US law I'm pretty sure > I'd win. However, I'm aware that other users of OSM don't have the > benefit US-jurisdictional copyright law with respect to factual data, so > I won't do it, for their sake. As it stands, the OSM database is in the UK. > Still, I can't get my head around what the rules exactly are. If I read > a newspaper article which says that Main Street has been renamed to > Independence Blvd, can I use that, or do I have to go out there myself > and check? It makes no sense. There's a difference between using one fact from a newspaper article, and systematically extracting data from a database to reuse in another database. It's the same principle that allows Wikipedia to get away with getting co-ordinates for individual articles by taking them from a map, and us doing the same for every point of interest on the map. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wednesday 09 Sep 2009 3:21:02 pm Jack Stringer wrote: > We are diverting away from the original question. > > Is it OK to use Google Streetview data to check/confirm the data we have? no - for all the reasons already mentioned. It is not ok to use it for anything whatsoever to do with OSM. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
We are diverting away from the original question. Is it OK to use Google Streetview data to check/confirm the data we have? Clearly its not OK to use the images to gather information for use in OSM due to derived data part of the copyright. Jack Stringer ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Jonathan Bennett < openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk> wrote: > David Muir Sharnoff wrote: > >> Google's forbids many things, but looking at an image and noting the >> turn restrictions (or other content) that you can see within it is not >> mentioned. Such a use is not covered by "2 (b) copy, translate, >> modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof;" >> since the turn restrictions are something that you can see in the >> image -- not the image itself. >> >> -Dave >> > > Google's (or rather Tele Atlas's) lawyers would argue you were indeed > making a derivative work, and they can afford better lawyers than us -- > unless you have a huge pot of cash you want to use to test this case? Eh, I'd take on Google pro se (or with the help of free EFF lawyers or the like) over the issue of the ToS, and based on US law I'm pretty sure I'd win. However, I'm aware that other users of OSM don't have the benefit US-jurisdictional copyright law with respect to factual data, so I won't do it, for their sake. Still, I can't get my head around what the rules exactly are. If I read a newspaper article which says that Main Street has been renamed to Independence Blvd, can I use that, or do I have to go out there myself and check? It makes no sense. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Eric Wolf wrote: > not ok - if google has made a mistake (or an easter egg) and you >>> incorporate >>> that in OSM - we will all suffer. >>> >> >> How do you make a mistake with a picture of the real world? >> > > Ever hear of Photoshop? > > Map makers (and other surveyors of "real world" information) have > traditionally included incorrect information. If you duplicate their > incorrect information, then it's evident you were making derivative > products. > I see your point, but those maps are artistic representations of the real world. In this case, Google has taken photographs of the real world. Introducing cartographic error into those images would be A) costly and B) make their product less useful to their customers. Either way, I don't condone making maps from StreetView images, I'm just raising the point. Back in March, Ed Parsons pointed out [0] that since StreetView images are Google-owned, if someone asked nicely-enough we could get them to give us a license to explicitly map based on the streetview images (similar to the explicit license we have with Yahoo). [0] http://twitter.com/edparsons/status/1381963392 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On 9 Sep 2009, at 00:02, Ian Dees wrote: On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves kbc.org> wrote: On Wednesday 09 Sep 2009 2:40:49 am Anthony wrote: > Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, > street names, etc? This seems like an obvious "yes" to me, but then, I > would have said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, so I'm > not going to try to guess international copyright law. not ok - if google has made a mistake (or an easter egg) and you incorporate that in OSM - we will all suffer. How do you make a mistake with a picture of the real world? It being out of date, or being geotagged wrongly. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > On Wednesday 09 Sep 2009 2:40:49 am Anthony wrote: > > Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, > > street names, etc? This seems like an obvious "yes" to me, but then, I > > would have said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, so > I'm > > not going to try to guess international copyright law. > > not ok - if google has made a mistake (or an easter egg) and you > incorporate > that in OSM - we will all suffer. > How do you make a mistake with a picture of the real world? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On Wednesday 09 Sep 2009 2:40:49 am Anthony wrote: > Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, > street names, etc? This seems like an obvious "yes" to me, but then, I > would have said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, so I'm > not going to try to guess international copyright law. not ok - if google has made a mistake (or an easter egg) and you incorporate that in OSM - we will all suffer. -- regards Kenneth Gonsalves Associate NRC-FOSS http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
David Muir Sharnoff wrote: > Google's forbids many things, but looking at an image and noting the > turn restrictions (or other content) that you can see within it is not > mentioned. Such a use is not covered by "2 (b) copy, translate, > modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof;" > since the turn restrictions are something that you can see in the > image -- not the image itself. > > -Dave Google's (or rather Tele Atlas's) lawyers would argue you were indeed making a derivative work, and they can afford better lawyers than us -- unless you have a huge pot of cash you want to use to test this case? As I said, there's probably a deal to be done with Google where we have permission to use the images, but it will take work and diplomacy. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Yes - but you are inherently deriving the location from the images georeferencing. If the image were provided outside of the context of Google Streets, you might be able to make the claim that looking at the image doesn't violate the copyright. But the fact that the image contains geospatially significant information and is geolocated makes this quite dubious - and best avoided. -Eric -=--=---===---=--=-=--=---==---=--=-=- Eric B. WolfNew! 720-334-7734 USGS Geographer Center of Excellence in GIScience PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM, David Muir Sharnoff wrote: > Google's forbids many things, but looking at an image and noting the > turn restrictions (or other content) that you can see within it is not > mentioned. Such a use is not covered by "2 (b) copy, translate, > modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof;" > since the turn restrictions are something that you can see in the > image -- not the image itself. > > -Dave > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Jonathan > Bennett wrote: > > Anthony wrote: > >> Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, > >> street names, etc? This seems like an obvious "yes" to me, but then, > >> I would have said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, > >> so I'm not going to try to guess international copyright law. > > The simple answer is that Street View is still protected by copyright, > > and that by using it you agree to Google's terms and conditions, so > > unless you have specific permission to derive data from it, it's safest > > to assume you can't. We're generally paranoid about copyright > > infringement because we don't want to jeopardise the entire project for > > the sake of a relatively small gain (Street View tends to cover urban > > areas, which are easier to survey in person anyway). > > > > You also need to consider that Street View still uses Google Maps as > > part of its interface (and possibly for the overlaid navigation data), > > so it's affected by the licence on that data. > > > > However, Google does own the Street View pictures themselves in their > > entirety. If they, with the location and bearing of each one was made > > available to OSM under terms compatible with CC-BY-SA (or ODBL), then we > > could use them. We would need a way of accessing the images that made no > > reference to any other geodata (so the standard web interface would be > > out). It's something we'd need to negotiate, but we can't do it at > > present, unfortunately. > > > > J. > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Google's forbids many things, but looking at an image and noting the turn restrictions (or other content) that you can see within it is not mentioned. Such a use is not covered by "2 (b) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof;" since the turn restrictions are something that you can see in the image -- not the image itself. -Dave On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > Anthony wrote: >> Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, >> street names, etc? This seems like an obvious "yes" to me, but then, >> I would have said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, >> so I'm not going to try to guess international copyright law. > The simple answer is that Street View is still protected by copyright, > and that by using it you agree to Google's terms and conditions, so > unless you have specific permission to derive data from it, it's safest > to assume you can't. We're generally paranoid about copyright > infringement because we don't want to jeopardise the entire project for > the sake of a relatively small gain (Street View tends to cover urban > areas, which are easier to survey in person anyway). > > You also need to consider that Street View still uses Google Maps as > part of its interface (and possibly for the overlaid navigation data), > so it's affected by the licence on that data. > > However, Google does own the Street View pictures themselves in their > entirety. If they, with the location and bearing of each one was made > available to OSM under terms compatible with CC-BY-SA (or ODBL), then we > could use them. We would need a way of accessing the images that made no > reference to any other geodata (so the standard web interface would be > out). It's something we'd need to negotiate, but we can't do it at > present, unfortunately. > > J. > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
I didn't realize the imagery was opened up for world wide use. Last I heard, it was only in the US. -Eric -=--=---===---=--=-=--=---==---=--=-=- Eric B. WolfNew! 720-334-7734 USGS Geographer Center of Excellence in GIScience PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Shaun McDonald wrote: > > On 8 Sep 2009, at 22:21, Eric Wolf wrote: > > >> Further, you should only be using satellite imagery to generate OSM data >> if the copyright has been released for that purpose (like Yahoo's imagery in >> the US) or if the imagery is provided without restriction (like USGS >> imagery). >> > > Why do you state Yahoo's imagery _in the US_, when in fact we are allowed > to use it worldwide? > > Shaun > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
On 8 Sep 2009, at 22:21, Eric Wolf wrote: > > Further, you should only be using satellite imagery to generate OSM > data if the copyright has been released for that purpose (like > Yahoo's imagery in the US) or if the imagery is provided without > restriction (like USGS imagery). Why do you state Yahoo's imagery _in the US_, when in fact we are allowed to use it worldwide? Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Anthony wrote: > Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, > street names, etc? This seems like an obvious "yes" to me, but then, > I would have said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, > so I'm not going to try to guess international copyright law. The simple answer is that Street View is still protected by copyright, and that by using it you agree to Google's terms and conditions, so unless you have specific permission to derive data from it, it's safest to assume you can't. We're generally paranoid about copyright infringement because we don't want to jeopardise the entire project for the sake of a relatively small gain (Street View tends to cover urban areas, which are easier to survey in person anyway). You also need to consider that Street View still uses Google Maps as part of its interface (and possibly for the overlaid navigation data), so it's affected by the licence on that data. However, Google does own the Street View pictures themselves in their entirety. If they, with the location and bearing of each one was made available to OSM under terms compatible with CC-BY-SA (or ODBL), then we could use them. We would need a way of accessing the images that made no reference to any other geodata (so the standard web interface would be out). It's something we'd need to negotiate, but we can't do it at present, unfortunately. J. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
In general, using anything Google to generate information for OSM violates Google's copyrights and possibly other copyrights that Google doesn't hold. Google Street View images are geocoded information and definitely copyrighted as such. They have special value in their geocoding. Using images from Flickr is, perhaps, a little looser because any geocoding isn't necessary part of the "information" conveyed in the art form of the photograph - but that may be argued by the copyright owner. Further, you should only be using satellite imagery to generate OSM data if the copyright has been released for that purpose (like Yahoo's imagery in the US) or if the imagery is provided without restriction (like USGS imagery). -Eric -=--=---===---=--=-=--=---==---=--=-=- Eric B. WolfNew! 720-334-7734 USGS Geographer Center of Excellence in GIScience PhD Student CU-Boulder - Geography On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Anthony wrote: > Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, > street names, etc? This seems like an obvious "yes" to me, but then, I > would have said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, so I'm > not going to try to guess international copyright law. > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Anthony schreef: > Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, > street names, etc? This seems like an obvious "yes" to me, but then, I > would have said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, so > I'm not going to try to guess international copyright law. I know that it is allowed to use copyrighted data to validate that your own data is incorrect, to then, survey your own data again. But I don't think you can take the shortcut... although again "who is going to notice" especially with that kind of material. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREKAAYFAkqmyqUACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn291wCaA3daMmTnOSrt3YoQ8m0hiQyN EmEAoJNmXw1F4DNfmKUWDmym6zm29iyB =PHzn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question
Is it okay to use Google Street View to confirm turning restrictions, street names, etc? This seems like an obvious "yes" to me, but then, I would have said the same thing about tracing from a satellite photo, so I'm not going to try to guess international copyright law. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
