[OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps

Tim Waters chippy2005 at gmail.com
Fri Mar 16 10:42:40 GMT 2012


>From what I recall, but this is not canon (insert disqualification etc) Ed
Parsons from Google has basically said in one of his personal blog posts in
2008 [1] that interpreting the location of a point to create a new bit of
data using their aerial imagery does not make it derived data, because the
person uses their own judgement. This is contrasted to using say, the
corner of a building in google maps to do the same thing.  But legally, I
think it is still completely uncertain. In a couple of projects, with the
mapwarper (doing similar things), most institutions do not use the Google
supplied Aerial imagery, but a couple do.

I believe the example given was the mapping of recycling centres based on
the interpretation of the imagery. He used the words "Skill and judgement".

I think, however, that this doesn't really allow OSM to trace wholesale the
google imagery - but for cases where a persons skill and judgement are
called, I think that it should be okay.

Tim

[1] http://www.edparsons.com/2008/10/who-map-is-it-anyway/




On 10 March 2012 14:45, Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com> wrote:

> Hi Paul,
>
> This isn't a matter of one or two maps.  PLOTS is building a "edit" in
> OSM button for their website, there are already tons of maps that have
> been made: http://publiclaboratory.org/archive?page=1
>
> -Kate
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Paul Norman <penorman at mac.com> wrote:
> >> From: andrzej zaborowski [mailto:balrogg at gmail.com]
> >> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Digitizing from Balloon Maps
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 10 March 2012 03:51, Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com> wrote:
> >> > Hey All,
> >> >
> >> > I was wondering what the license implications would be from digitizing
> >> > from balloon maps that had been rectified from other satellite
> >> > imagery.
> >> >
> >> > - So let's say you fly photos of an area
> >> > - To stitch them together you use Google Maps imagery as the base
> >> > - What is the deal with the imagery at that point?
> >> > - If I trace the imagery is that really derived from Google Maps?
> >> >
> >> > It seems insignificant to me, but I wanted to get some insight.
> >>
> >> I would also like to know, especially in the context of Jeff Warren's
> >> mail on talk.  I think the legal side here is easier than the community
> >> customs.  I have heard both "obviously if it's rectified using Google,
> >> it can't be used in OSM", and "obviously it doesn't matter".
> >>
> >> I think Bing support in Map Knitter (even though legally it's in the
> >> same bandwagon as Google) would have a better community acceptance.
> >> Where I tried rectifying something with Map Knitter, Google imagery was
> >> useless because of complete cloud cover, too.
> >
> > I'm not a lawyer but I believe standard practice for imagery providers
> here
> > is to rectify based on a database of survey points and I don't believe
> the
> > providers regard their imagery as a derivative work of the database. Next
> > time I'm at the city I'll ask them.
> >
> > If you are rectifying, try to get *some* survey points for your warping.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > legal-talk mailing list
> > legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20120316/36f5f1c1/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list