[Talk-us] Texas - redacted roads.

Nathan Mills nathan at nwacg.net
Thu Oct 12 13:17:19 UTC 2017


The problem as I understand it is less copyright violation (in the US, so long as what you see in Google isn't ever put into the OSM database), and more database licensing difficulty in the rest of the world where the law is less permissive and even using Google to identify possible errors in to be corrected by survey or open data could be legally questionable in terms of sublicensing the work as a whole.

Best to stay well on the correct side of the line just to avoid any possible issues since we have to be legal globally, not just in the US or UK or the EU.

-Nathan

On October 12, 2017 6:04:37 AM EDT, Nick Hocking <nick.hocking at gmail.com> wrote:
>richlv wrote "just a quick reminder that we should try not to use
>google
>maps or
>streetview, the legal status of "just looking" is also fuzzy :)"
>
>
>Ok, so I if want to find out what a road is called, I'm not allowed to
>use
>a street directory to do this?  This would be extremely weird.
>
>If I am allowed to use a street directory for this, then I'm not
>allowed to
>tell anybody else what I think the name of the road is.  Also extremely
>weird.
>
>I don't believe that writing what someone else thinks is the name of
>the
>roads constitutes republishing their proprietary work and I'm certainly
>not
>putting this information into any other work or database. (Mind you
>IANAL).
>
>A few years ago this topic came up and IIRC Google said that it was ok
>to
>look at "some" amount of their published data but not systematically
>trawl
>through a LOT of it.
>All very subjective, I know.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20171012/18a056f4/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list