[OSM-talk] Data copied from Google Maps

[Peter Wendorff]

The difference is that for the satellite images we use we have a 
statement from the corresponding companies that allows us to do so.
Yes, that's nothing 100 Lawyers looked over, but it's a permission we 
got, be it from microsoft and bing, from yahoo or from others.

There is not yet anything like that from google, so that's the difference.

regards
Peter

Am 06.11.2012 10:21, schrieb Janko Mihelic':
> How do proponents of copying from Streetview explain the difference 
> between copying from satellite images and copying from Streetview? 
> With satellite images you copy shapes of roads, with Streetview you 
> copy street names. The same thing.
>
> Janko
>
>
> 2012/11/6 Vladimir Vyskocil <vladimir.vyskocil at gmail.com 
> <mailto:vladimir.vyskocil at gmail.com>>
>
>
>     On 5 nov. 2012, at 23:39, Cartinus <cartinus at xs4all.nl
>     <mailto:cartinus at xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>
>     > Copyright has absolutely nothing to do with this at all. All
>     arguments
>     > people use in this this discussion in relation to copyright are
>     just a
>     > smokescreen to try to get their way.
>     >
>     > When viewing Google StreetView you are using a service from
>     Google. The
>     > rules in relation to that, are the rules for business
>     transactions, not
>     > those of copyright.
>     >
>     > Just like Openstreetmap has rules that say you are not allowed
>     to scrape
>     > tiles from our tileserver, Google has rules that say when you are
>     > allowed to use their services.
>
>     Yes and they say I'm not allowed to copy all or parts of the
>     provided material (images,...) and also that I can't make
>     derivative work. When I interpret what I can see in Street View
>     photos and write it down I'm doing neither of these !
>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 11/05/2012 11:25 PM, Vladimir Vyskocil wrote:
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> According to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
>     >>
>     >> "In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an
>     expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected
>     elements of an original, previously created first work
>     (theunderlying work)."
>     >>
>     >> Obviously looking at google street view images and noting some
>     facts we can see in them like street names,... can't be seen as
>     derivative work.
>     >>
>     >> And :
>     >>
>     >> "
>     >> When does derivative-work copyright exist?
>     >> For copyright protection to attach to a later, allegedly
>     derivative work, it must display some originality of its own. It
>     cannot be a rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying
>     work. The latter work must contain sufficient new expression, over
>     and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to
>     satisfy copyright law's requirement of originality.
>     >> "
>     >>
>     >> It's clear that Google's photos in street view have no
>     originality at all, they are just facts. Using some information
>     everybody can see in those images isn't a creative process either.
>     >>
>     >> In the light of those definitions of derivative work, I can't
>     understand how one might see a infringement of google terms of use
>     when OSM contributors look at Google Street View photos to verify
>     some facts (street names, signs, ...)
>     >>
>     >> Regards,
>     >> Vlad.
>     >>
>     >> Le 5 nov. 2012 à 16:42, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org
>     <mailto:frederik at remote.org>> a écrit :
>     >>
>     >>> Hi,
>     >>>
>     >>>  I haven't read this thread in full but it has come to my
>     attention that people in this thread have argued that it would be
>     acceptable to use Google StreetView pictures when mapping.
>     >>>
>     >>> It is not.
>     >>>
>     >>> The legal situation may be debatable and indeed differ from
>     country to country but Google's terms of use do not permit making
>     derivative works of their imagery and distributing them.
>     >>>
>     >>> As a project, our general approach to any situation where
>     something was not totally clear legally has always been to err on
>     the side of caution. If someone says that we cannot use this data
>     then we won't, even if there are people who say that it might
>     still be legal to do so.
>     >>>
>     >>> So don't use Google Street View for mapping unless you have
>     explicit permission from Google to do so.
>     >>>
>     >>> Bye
>     >>> Frederik
>     >>>
>     >>> --
>     >>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org
>     <mailto:frederik at remote.org>  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>     >>>
>     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >>> talk mailing list
>     >>> talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     >>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> _______________________________________________
>     >> talk mailing list
>     >> talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>     >>
>     >
>     > --
>     > ---
>     > m.v.g.,
>     > Cartinus
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > talk mailing list
>     > talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     talk mailing list
>     talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20121106/cabfaa96/attachment.html>