[OSM-talk] Google Street View copyright question

[John Smith]

2009/9/10 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:

> 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.