If I'm not mistaken, the thread is not about the copyrightability of maps themselves, but the copyrightability of location data pertaining to digital maps, i.e. the very "non-pictoral fact compilations" mentioned in the statement you provided. - -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation

I would say claiming copyright on a map is legitimate but I think the big issue here is the geotag's themselves (i.e the locations) since so many people use google maps or another tool to find the geo location. The locations themselves is what we have decided are facts and therefore copyrightable and I would think that openstreetmap should both be able to use those and should use those. I don't totally understand the thought process behind not allowing them to use actual geo locations from wikipedia. James Alexander james.alexander(a)rochester.edu jamesofur(a)gmail.com 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one :) On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

The thought process (note: I do not agree with it) goes like this: * A map or a sattelite photograph is copyrighted material * Taking a location from a map or a photograph is getting a derivative work from it * You are not allowed to make a derivative work from a copyrighted source

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.rs> wrote: As I said, the selection of these coordinates is a work, and if you dont have any image available you cannot do so.

What is the contract between you and google to use this data? Are you

sure that you are allowed to just take the points and relicense them under the CC-SA?

Even one point may not be a problem, but if you select all the interesting points then you run into issues of collections and databases.

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk(a)eunet.rs> wrote: source As I said, the selection of these coordinates is a work, and if you dont have any image available you cannot do so. What is the contract between you and google to use this data? Are you sure that you are allowed to just take the points and relicense them under the CC-SA? The sat images are not 100% facts, they are just one point of view. and just using one single source of information is not a good idea. Even one point may not be a problem, but if you select all the interesting points then you run into issues of collections and databases. I think the argument "points are facts" is too simple, we need to understand where these points come from. mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: That was done only after OSM received explicit permission to use that data. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Haiti/Imagery_and_data_sourc… We did not receive this permission for the flooding in Albania that I am working on, if we could use the images then that would make our work much simpler. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/AlbanianFloodingCrisisCamp Just because it is good publicity for a company to donate data to a high profile disaster does not mean that you can use other data for other smaller disasters. How would these companies be in business if you could just extract all the vector data from the sat photos as you wish? If that was so, I could also extract the street data from the google earth using a contour program, or extract certain colors and create and compare streets based on that. That is against against OSM policy. A friend of mine has created a bullet point list of the major issues here, I will include it for further discussion: * Using data from google maps is a contract law issue, not a copyright issue ** Anyone mass publishing google derived data could be in breach of Google's T&C's ** Anyone using the information afterwards isn't in breach of contract ** Re-use is dependent on the jurisdiction and copyright the information is released under. * Wikipedia has strong policy on accepting images only freely usable ** The same can't be said for data, wikipedia has data from dubious sources ** Data uploaded from google services may be in breach of google's terms on mass distribution * While facts aren't protected under copyright under some jurisdictions ** Databases of facts can be protected under EU law and wikipedia operates in various EU jurisdictions ** By not having a strong policy on all content wikipedia may open themselves up to being liable mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hoi, The position of a bridge, a building, a statue is a fact. It cannot be copyrighted and the only reason for attribution of a map used to obtain such a coordinate is to allow other people to verify the process. Coordinates are available on many Wikipedia articles, they come from a wide variety of sources and are provided by a large number of people. There is no way of knowing what these people used to provide the information with. It is highly irrelevant. I had a look at your references to entries in mailing lists. The only thing I find is people having an opinion but not providing arguments. Facts, among them coordinates found in Wikipedia articles, are part of a CC-by-sa resource and once extracted from Wikipedia it is no longer possible to claim copyright and insist on a particular licensing scheme. When articles that include coordinates are projected as an overlay on a map be it OpenStreetMap or Google Maps / Earth such an overlay uses the maps as a backdrop to provide orientation in the real world. Thanks,     GerardM On 1 April 2010 12:07, jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com < jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Guys, Lets get back to one point : terms of service. We are talking about copyright here the whole time, but the contract agreement in the terms of service are much more binding, they override your copyright. If the terms of service do not allow mass database extraction, WP is violating that on a large scale.

The online maps are provided to you under very strict rules and to access them you must agree to them. The whole idea of many map providers is that you can only view these great maps using their software and their software keys. If wikipedia is condoning a mass import of data from such a source that goes against that contract, how can you justify it? How can other people trust the judgement of wikipedia on this issue?

What if we start to write articles about street and include all the buildings and boring parts of the streets in the WP or some subproject, where would it stop? What would protect a database of streets against such a swarm of fact collectors? mike

2. Taking an image from a satellite or aeroplane image requires no copyrightable skill: Camera points down, takes images at fixed focus at regular time intervals. Images are published.

Wikipedia is operates under US copyright law, w/ servers

On the otherhand, openstreetmap is based in the uk with servers in London, and operates under uk/european law.

There are differences in how data (incl. map data) is treated under US law and how UK/European law treat data and data collections/databases Wikipedia is operates under US copyright law, w/ servers and the foundation US based (not sure how the Amsterdam servers fit under laws). In the US, facts such as listings in the phone book and geocoordinates are not copyrightable. I think wikipedians deriving these facts from google maps or google earth is okay under us law On the otherhand, openstreetmap is based in the uk with servers in London, and operates under uk/european law. I know that databases and data collections do get some protection under law there. Thus openstreetmap regards databases of coordinates (eg google) as having protection and disallows google maps as a source for osm Although deriving geocoordinates from google maps for wikipedia (under us law) is okay, I would prefer not doing so and use osm, NASA

Someone on the OSM threads commented that they make an effort to be 'whiter than white' when it comes to observing all possible legal nuances.  And it occurs to me that OSM at its heart is much more deeply concerned with reuse and guaranteeing zero hassles for reusers than Wikimedia currently is.

 [can you name a significant published work that draws heavily from a Wikimedia project, other than those produced by Wikipedians that consist entirely of an edited selection of Wikipedia articles?]

... and as of last summer they claimed the money they spend to validate the 'freeness' of those images is similar to what they would normally pay a stock company, but decreasing over time.

(This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson) Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly one that involves "inherent pictorial or photographic nature". "It is true that maps are factual compilations insofar as their subject matter is concerned. Admittedly, most maps present information about geographic relationships, and the "accuracy" of this presentation, with its utilitarian aspects, is the reason most maps are made and sold. Unlike most other factual compilations, however, maps translate this subject-matter into pictorial or graphic form.... Since it is this pictorial or graphic form, and not the map's subject matter, that is relevant to copyright protection, maps must be distinguished from non-pictorial fact compilations.... A map does not present objective reality; just as a photograph's pictorial form is central to its nature, so a map transforms reality into a unique pictorial form central to its nature." See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992). http://openjurist.org/967/f2d/135 I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map is "absurdity" is itself wrong. -Dan On Mar 31, 2010, at 3:58 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote: material.>> is map, _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Now some background : Today, I found a map of Albania with no sources mentioned , and currently I am working on mapping Albania. That is why I bring this up. With all these maps in wikipedia, how can the authors possible be the creators of the whole map, there are very few cases of maps that are usable under a creative commons sharealike license, and wikipedia seems to have many of them that might be infringing. About the point extraction, I started to extract points months ago to import into OSM, but I stopped because of concerns about importing from google data. Now on the issue is that of derived works and tracing, feature extraction. let me quote wikipedia on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth Currently, every image created from Google Earth using satellite data provided by Google Earth is a copyrighted map. Any derivative from Google Earth is made from copyrighted data which, under United States Copyright Law, may not be used except under the licenses Google provides. On the the other side , may of the geoeye licenses who provide information to google maps have this clause: http://gs.mdacorporation.com/products/sensor/irs/GeoEyeEULATier2007.pdf Other Derived Works (vector extraction, classification, etc.) have no restrictions on use and distribution. Reduced resolution data sets (RRDS) with ratios of 16:1 or higher shall have no restrictions on use and distribution, but shall contain the copyright markings. The google maps TOS: http://www.google.com/intl/en_ALL/help/terms_maps.html 2. Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not: (a) access or use the Products or any Content through any technology or means other than those provided in the Products, or through other explicitly authorized means Google may designate (such as through the Google Maps/Google Earth APIs); (b) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof; --- Well we are copying the location of items from google. (c) redistribute, sublicense, rent, publish, sell, assign, lease, market, transfer, or otherwise make the Products or Content available to third parties; (e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data; ---Well if I import all the points from wikipedia, it is equivalent to such a mass import. (f) delete, obscure, or in any manner alter any warning, notice (including but not limited to any copyright or other proprietary rights notice), or link that appears in the Products or the Content; or (g) use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with (i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device; or (ii) any systems or functions for automatic or autonomous control of vehicle behavior. --- So the navigation functions from openstreetmap coupled with points of interest from wikipedia could fall under that. So, I think that the usage of the google maps is very restricted and we should look into this more. thanks, mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l