Google, yes. Google's lawyers, no ;)
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, 4:07 AM Simon Poole wrote:
> Actually I think the more important question is: doesn't google have a
> better method to create a background map than screenshots? :-)
> (particularly noticeable due to the POI pins in the 2nd and third
>
Of course Google *can* afford a lawyer and bureaucracy does not legally or
physically limit their ability to act, but I think you underestimate the
*practical* limitations. Even the smallest amount of bureaucracy and cost
(which just adds more bureaucracy, because the cost must be approved) makes
Hi Martin,
Yes, Google might already have a subsidiary in a country (since they have
them in many but certainly not in all countries) but they would still have
to "go" there in the sense that: 1) I very much doubt the subsidiary would
already have a plaintiff-side copyright attorney on speed dial,
sent from a phone
> On 14. Apr 2019, at 10:48, Kathleen Lu wrote:
>
> For Berne counties, I think it technically depends on where the
> "infringement" takes place, whatever that would mean in this scenario
the information is stored and distributed from the UK, the mapper is more
likely to
Hi all
Well, these are great inputs so thank you
I agree that the document were committed by Google to FCC.
Le dim. 14 avr. 2019 à 10:51, Kathleen Lu via talk
a écrit :
>
> For Berne counties, I think it technically depends on where the
> "infringement" takes place, whatever that would mean
For Berne counties, I think it technically depends on where the
"infringement" takes place, whatever that would mean in this scenario, but
the idea that Google would go to another country to spend $$$ to sue over
this one line is preposterous to me.
Let me put it this way: I would be comfortable
sent from a phone
> On 14. Apr 2019, at 09:47, Kathleen Lu via talk
> wrote:
>
> My opinion as a copyright lawyer is that there is nothing copyrightable in
> the single line that consists of the proposed route, under US law.
> Of course others are free to disagree.
are you sure that US
My opinion as a copyright lawyer is that there is nothing copyrightable in
the single line that consists of the proposed route, under US law.
Of course others are free to disagree.
On Sun, Apr 14, 2019, 9:36 AM Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:
> de minimis is applicable in cases where copyrighted
de minimis is applicable in cases where copyrighted content is unimportant
addition to
work
it certainly does not apply in case where you copy solely that content
For example de minimis apply if you take photo and there is a movie poster in
the
background.
It stops to apply once you crop to
The linked document was filed by GN's attorneys, submitted to the FCC, not
authored by the FCC. That said, the level of detail on the map is so small
that I personally would deem any copying de minimus.
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019, 11:30 PM Clifford Snow
wrote:
>
> François,
> The US FCC should be
François,
The US FCC should be public domain unless otherwise indicated.
Best,
Clifford
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 7:48 AM François Lacombe
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Google is currently rolling out several submarine telecommunication cable
> systems and Amercian FCC actually publishes application
Hi all,
Google is currently rolling out several submarine telecommunication cable
systems and Amercian FCC actually publishes application documents
describing them.
Such one regards the Dunant system between Virginia Beach and
Saint-Hilaire-de-Riez in France
12 matches
Mail list logo
