What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
Note that some of the images claim "PD".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Irvine_Sat_View.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RanchoSatView.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Migrationdinka.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hhi-troads.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:St_cath_wifi.png etc
On 11/22/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth?
Delete
I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
not normaly.
On 11/22/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/22/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth?
Delete
I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
not normaly.
geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For what I see, they've been used decoratively, fialing criteria "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." at WP:FU
I'll take the example of schools
1. air pictures are useless to identify a subject, a picture of the school front or characteristic buildings is better. This is also related to
"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken."
A free alternative that identifies the school can be easily obtained, so fair use holds water
2. No relevant sections deal with the images themselves.
So, delete
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities.
I'd say delete them, *especially* the ones that are or contain the map data. (At least one of those looked like Mapquest or Google Maps, bot of course it's the same issue.)
I'm sure the uploaders are well-meaning, and really want a picture of their school or city in their articles, but there's really no justification, and it sets a bad precedent, and although Google might not complain, it can't be the sort of thing they'd condone.
On 11/22/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
If they're not used in the article on Google Earth, shoot 'em. The only place the fair-use claim can hold up is if the screenshot is being discussed *as a screenshot*.
On 22/11/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
Note that some of the images claim "PD".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Irvine_Sat_View.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RanchoSatView.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Migrationdinka.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hhi-troads.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:St_cath_wifi.png
The fair-use claim almost certainly doesn't work. However, it may be possible to replace them with equivalent free shots via NASA WorldWind - I believe all their map data is public domain or otherwise free, and so "photography" with it is fine.
Map snippets, like on "troads" can be reproduced with ten minutes in an art program. This isn't rocket science.
Andrew's right, NASA images should be PD.
On 11/22/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/11/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
Note that some of the images claim "PD".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Irvine_Sat_View.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RanchoSatView.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Migrationdinka.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hhi-troads.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:St_cath_wifi.png
The fair-use claim almost certainly doesn't work. However, it may be possible to replace them with equivalent free shots via NASA WorldWind
- I believe all their map data is public domain or otherwise free, and
so "photography" with it is fine.
Map snippets, like on "troads" can be reproduced with ten minutes in an art program. This isn't rocket science.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 22/11/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
Andrew's right, NASA images should be PD.
Technically, a lot of the WorldWind images are USGS or NOAA data, but same difference - SFAIK they're still free.
Bogdan Giusca wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
Note that some of the images claim "PD".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Irvine_Sat_View.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RanchoSatView.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Migrationdinka.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hhi-troads.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:St_cath_wifi.png etc
Delete and replace with a {{geolinks}} or {{coor d}} template.
On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
Delete them all. Unless they're used in [[Google Earth]] to demonstrate how the program looks, there's simply no valid reason to include them when:
a) free alternatives are almost always available via WorldWind (especially for the US) b) the coordinates templates [1] allow people to easily look the same information up themselves, with only two clicks of the mouse, and with no copyright issues whatsoever.
Note that some of the images claim "PD".
In that case the uploaders need a stern talking to. It's hard to imagine that people don't realise that imagery from Google Earth is copyrighted when it's plastered all over the bottom of the screen, and appears in the screenshots.
-- (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Coordinates_templates
On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
Delete them all. Unless they're used in [[Google Earth]] to demonstrate how the program looks, there's simply no valid reason to include them when:
a) free alternatives are almost always available via WorldWind (especially for the US)
For the UK there is a datated but free high quality alternative for anyone who is prepared to do a search through the national monuments record archive.
Would this be public domain?
On 11/23/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
Delete them all. Unless they're used in [[Google Earth]] to demonstrate how the program looks, there's simply no valid reason to include them when:
a) free alternatives are almost always available via WorldWind (especially for the US)
For the UK there is a datated but free high quality alternative for anyone who is prepared to do a search through the national monuments record archive.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/23/06, Joe Anderson computerjoe.mailinglist@googlemail.com wrote:
Would this be public domain?
Yes. Crown copyright photos over 50 years old.
On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Note that some of the images claim "PD".
In that case the uploaders need a stern talking to. It's hard to imagine that people don't realise that imagery from Google Earth is copyrighted when it's plastered all over the bottom of the screen, and appears in the screenshots.
Just because something claims to be copyrighted doesn't mean it is.
Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain. Google has not added the necessary creativity to change this.
That said, it's much safer to just use NASA Worldwind.
Anthony
On 23/11/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Just because something claims to be copyrighted doesn't mean it is.
Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain. Google has not added the necessary creativity to change this.
Unfortunately, most of what people want to use is high-res shots of local areas, which are the bits (IME) most likely to be honest-to-god-actually-copyrighted work as opposed to USGS-with-a-label-on-it copyrighted...
That said, it's much safer to just use NASA Worldwind.
It's a nicer-executed program, too ;-)
On 11/24/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Note that some of the images claim "PD".
In that case the uploaders need a stern talking to. It's hard to imagine that people don't realise that imagery from Google Earth is copyrighted when it's plastered all over the bottom of the screen, and appears in the screenshots.
Just because something claims to be copyrighted doesn't mean it is.
Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain. Google has not added the necessary creativity to change this.
That said, it's much safer to just use NASA Worldwind.
I didn't say that Google has copyright over imagery in Google Earth. I said that the imagery is copyrighted.
If you look near the bottom of the screen you'll see the names of the copyright holder(s), the imaging companies that Google has sourced the satellite imagery from, DigitalGlobe for example.
On 24/11/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/24/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain. Google has not added the necessary creativity to change this.
That said, it's much safer to just use NASA Worldwind.
I didn't say that Google has copyright over imagery in Google Earth. I said that the imagery is copyrighted.
IANAL, of course, but I believe that the work that Google has done in stitching together all the various image data sets to produce a derivative work (Google Earth) based on them would count as creative and original, so a screenshot of such a stitched area would infringe their copyright.
On 11/24/06, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 24/11/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/24/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain. Google has not added the necessary creativity to change this.
That said, it's much safer to just use NASA Worldwind.
I didn't say that Google has copyright over imagery in Google Earth. I said that the imagery is copyrighted.
IANAL, of course, but I believe that the work that Google has done in stitching together all the various image data sets to produce a derivative work (Google Earth) based on them would count as creative and original, so a screenshot of such a stitched area would infringe their copyright.
In 99% of cases, I doubt it the work done by Google would be enough to obtain copyright protection. Most of the time it isn't even something done by hand, it's something done by computer.
Anthony
In 99% of cases, I doubt it the work done by Google would be enough to obtain copyright protection. Most of the time it isn't even something done by hand, it's something done by computer.
I think Google have done enough for it to count as a derived work. It's not just a compilation of images, they are put together in a very careful and precise way. As far as I know, it doesn't matter if something is done by hand or by computer - it's still copyrightable.
On 11/24/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In 99% of cases, I doubt it the work done by Google would be enough to obtain copyright protection. Most of the time it isn't even something done by hand, it's something done by computer.
I think Google have done enough for it to count as a derived work. It's not just a compilation of images, they are put together in a very careful and precise way. As far as I know, it doesn't matter if something is done by hand or by computer - it's still copyrightable.
Careful and precise are not the standards for copyright protection. Creative is. In the case of an image which is completely from a single public domain source, there just isn't anything creative being done. You stitch together the tiles in a completely algorithmic manner. If anyone holds the copyright on the resulting work, it would be the person who chose what scene to picture (the user of the software), not the person who wrote the software. That is also the person who put the work in fixed form, another requirement for copyright protection.
I say show me the creativity. I don't see it. I actually don't see much creativity in any satellite photography, but when it comes to creativity from Google in a typical Google Earth shot, I don't see any at all.
This is all completely US-centric of an argument, of course. In many jurisdictions creativity isn't even required for copyright protection.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
I say show me the creativity. I don't see it. I actually don't see much creativity in any satellite photography, but...
Um, have you ever looked at Google Earth? It contains much more than satellite photography. Most major cities (including the ones people are snipping scenes of schools from) are overlaid with high-resolution photographs taken from airplanes. Those datasets were collected (as far as I know) by commercial aerial photography companies, and licensed by Google for big bucks.
Typically you see two or three different copyright notices at the bottom of a Google Earth screen, covering the licensed, commercial photographs used, the data overlays (roads, rivers, etc.) applied, and anything else. (And the notices change as you pan around, and hit coverage from different datasets.)
The stuff ain't PD. I'm prepared to be proved wrong, but as far as I know, it's quite legitimately copyrighted.
On 11/25/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I say show me the creativity. I don't see it. I actually don't see much creativity in any satellite photography, but...
Um, have you ever looked at Google Earth? It contains much more than satellite photography.
And I never said all of Google Earth imagery is public domain. I said "Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain."
The stuff ain't PD. I'm prepared to be proved wrong, but as far as I know, it's quite legitimately copyrighted.
Are you trying to say *none* of it is PD, or are you saying *some* of it isn't? I agree completely that *some* of it likely isn't PD.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 11/25/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Um, have you ever looked at Google Earth? It contains much more than satellite photography.
And I never said all of Google Earth imagery is public domain. I said "Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain."
Oh, okay, sorry.
The stuff ain't PD. I'm prepared to be proved wrong, but as far as I know, it's quite legitimately copyrighted.
Are you trying to say *none* of it is PD, or are you saying *some* of it isn't? I agree completely that *some* of it likely isn't PD.
Well, I was going to hazard a guess that most if not all of the *interesting* portion of it is not PD, where "interesting" means "is likely to be screenshotted by Wikipedia editors".
One interesting thing to look at is just how much Google Earth screeshots differ from 1) World Wind screenshots; and 2) the real thing - from that location and angle.
That would be interesting, and I'd be happy to help, but I don't have access to World Wind (it's Windows-only, AFAIK). We could start with the five images which Bogdan Giusca cited to start this thread:
Someone has already replaced this with a World Wind image. Since it covers a wide area, it's comparable.
This one's already tagged as a copyvio, and will be deleted in a few days. It's centered on lat/long 33.663065, -117.806551. If someone can make a 2000 foot (600 meter) wide World Wind screenshot centered on those coordinates, that would be a useful comparison.
This is also a wide-scale image, so the World Wind data is likely to be comparable. It's about 300 miles / 480 km wide, centered on lat/long 8.90, 28.94.
This one is pure map data, not satellite or aerial photography at all.
This one has evidently already been deleted.
(But, hmm, given that two out of three of the remaining images are wide-scale, I may have been wrong in my guess that "most of the interesting data" is unavoidably copyrighted.)
On 11/26/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 11/25/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote: One interesting thing to look at is just how much Google Earth screeshots differ from 1) World Wind screenshots; and 2) the real thing - from that location and angle.
That would be interesting, and I'd be happy to help, but I don't have access to World Wind (it's Windows-only, AFAIK). We could start with the five images which Bogdan Giusca cited to start this thread:
http://www.mcfly.org/coord/%7Blatitude%7D/%7Blongitude%7D will give you links to many of the raw tiles that are used by World Wind. The database of sources isn't complete yet, though, and pretty much none of the manipulation of the images done by World Wind is done by this script. The quality in areas of the US is sometimes quite good. See for instance http://www.mcfly.org/coord/33.684065/-117.792581
I really wish these images were better tagged, for instance with a lat/long and zoom level, or even better with a bounding rectangle.
Someone has already replaced this with a World Wind image. Since it covers a wide area, it's comparable.
This one's already tagged as a copyvio, and will be deleted in a few days. It's centered on lat/long 33.663065, -117.806551. If someone can make a 2000 foot (600 meter) wide World Wind screenshot centered on those coordinates, that would be a useful comparison.
http://www.mcfly.org/coord/33.663065/-117.806551 (http://ims.cr.usgs.gov/wmsconnector/com.esri.wms.Esrimap/USGS_EDC_Ortho_Urba...) Now, this is ZoomIt data. Is it declared to be public domain, or is someone claiming copyright? It's off the USGS website, FWIW.
BTW, the centering and framing could probably be tweaked a bit, I just made a quick link.
This is also a wide-scale image, so the World Wind data is likely to be comparable. It's about 300 miles / 480 km wide, centered on lat/long 8.90, 28.94.
http://www.mcfly.org/coord/8.90/28.94 looks very different. The zoom level is probably too high or too low. I really don't know enough about the feature I'm trying to show to do a good job of this one.
This one is pure map data, not satellite or aerial photography at all.
It's in the US, so it should be covered by the public domain Tiger/Line data. The data is available, among other places, from http://www.esri.com/data/download/census2000_tigerline/index.html
ESRI has freeware software to make maps from the data, and they don't claim a copyright on the resulting map. Otherwise, there are freeware packages out there to do it.
I'm not going to volunteer for this one right now :).
Anthony
On 11/26/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/26/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
This one's already tagged as a copyvio, and will be deleted in a few days. It's centered on lat/long 33.663065, -117.806551. If someone can make a 2000 foot (600 meter) wide World Wind screenshot centered on those coordinates, that would be a useful comparison.
http://www.mcfly.org/coord/33.663065/-117.806551 (http://ims.cr.usgs.gov/wmsconnector/com.esri.wms.Esrimap/USGS_EDC_Ortho_Urba...) Now, this is ZoomIt data. Is it declared to be public domain, or is someone claiming copyright? It's off the USGS website, FWIW.
Looking at the vehicles on the highway, it's obviously derived from the exact same photograph. I believe this is a USGS photo, which would make it public domain, but I'm not sure how to prove it.
Anthony
Anthony wrote:
On 11/26/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
One interesting thing to look at is just how much Google Earth screeshots differ from 1) World Wind screenshots;
We could start with the five images which Bogdan Giusca cited to start this thread:
http://www.mcfly.org/coord/%7Blatitude%7D/%7Blongitude%7D will give you links to many of the raw tiles that are used by World Wind... The quality in areas of the US is sometimes quite good.
This one's already tagged as a copyvio, and will be deleted in a few days. It's centered on lat/long 33.663065, -117.806551.
http://www.mcfly.org/coord/33.663065/-117.806551 (http://ims.cr.usgs.gov/wmsconnector/com.esri.wms.Esrimap/USGS_EDC_Ortho_Urba...) Now, this is ZoomIt data. Is it declared to be public domain, or is someone claiming copyright? It's off the USGS website, FWIW.
Looking at the vehicles on the highway, it's obviously derived from the exact same photograph. I believe this is a USGS photo...
Wow. That's very interesting. I knew there was a lot of USGS data out there, but I didn't know there was *that* much. That little mcfly site, incomplete though it is, is doing a great job of indexing it. Thanks. I stand corrected.
On 11/27/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Wow. That's very interesting. I knew there was a lot of USGS data out there, but I didn't know there was *that* much.
Here's a list of most if not all of it. Some of these are apparently proprietary though (they are listed as for viewing only - no downloading).
http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/products/listofortho.asp
Where the coverage is (only in the US, but starting to get a lot of cities), the resolution is really good. That shot from Los Angeles was 0.3 meters (per pixel). Some of the data is at 0.15 meters. Geocover 2000, on the other hand, which covers the entire globe, is 14.25 meters. So outside the US most of the public domain imagery is not very good (I think, please prove me wrong!).
On 11/27/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Where the coverage is (only in the US, but starting to get a lot of cities), the resolution is really good. That shot from Los Angeles was 0.3 meters (per pixel). Some of the data is at 0.15 meters. Geocover 2000, on the other hand, which covers the entire globe, is 14.25 meters. So outside the US most of the public domain imagery is not very good (I think, please prove me wrong!).
Depends on who you get your data from. US goverment is not the only source. While most mondern ones are not going to be PD there are a few historic ones around.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/nmr_aerial_collections_overvie...
Anthony wrote:
On 11/27/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Wow. That's very interesting. I knew there was a lot of USGS data out there, but I didn't know there was *that* much.
Here's a list of most if not all of it. Some of these are apparently proprietary though (they are listed as for viewing only - no downloading).
http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/products/listofortho.asp
Where the coverage is (only in the US, but starting to get a lot of cities), the resolution is really good. That shot from Los Angeles was 0.3 meters (per pixel). Some of the data is at 0.15 meters. Geocover 2000, on the other hand, which covers the entire globe, is 14.25 meters. So outside the US most of the public domain imagery is not very good (I think, please prove me wrong!).
Is such satellite imagery copyrightable in the first place, in the U.S. anyway? Isn't it just mechanical imaging of the earth's surface, and therefore no more copyrightable than a mechanical reproduction of the Mona Lisa is?
-Mark
On 11/27/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
On 11/27/06, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Wow. That's very interesting. I knew there was a lot of USGS data out there, but I didn't know there was *that* much.
Here's a list of most if not all of it. Some of these are apparently proprietary though (they are listed as for viewing only - no downloading).
http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/products/listofortho.asp
Where the coverage is (only in the US, but starting to get a lot of cities), the resolution is really good. That shot from Los Angeles was 0.3 meters (per pixel). Some of the data is at 0.15 meters. Geocover 2000, on the other hand, which covers the entire globe, is 14.25 meters. So outside the US most of the public domain imagery is not very good (I think, please prove me wrong!).
Is such satellite imagery copyrightable in the first place, in the U.S. anyway? Isn't it just mechanical imaging of the earth's surface, and therefore no more copyrightable than a mechanical reproduction of the Mona Lisa is?
The simple answer - maybe. Since Feist (which didn't deal with photography either), there has been very little Supreme Court precedent as to what creative input/originality is necessary to make a photograph copyrightable. AFAIK there are a few cases in which there was obvious creative input, and that's it.
Personally I think lack of copyright protection could be argued at least for the satellite imagery shot in true color. But until there's a Supreme Court precedent, we'll never know for sure.
Anthony
On 25/11/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/24/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think Google have done enough for it to count as a derived work. It's not just a compilation of images, they are put together in a very careful and precise way.
... You stitch together the tiles in a completely algorithmic manner... I say show me the creativity. I don't see it.... when it comes to creativity from Google in a typical Google Earth shot, I don't see any at all.
This dizzying shot of Chicago skyscrapers colliding from different perspectives has clearly been edited by a human.
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&om=1&z=17&ll=41.881544,-87.63108...
Even if it was done algorithmically, which I doubt, then any algorithm smart enough to produce a result like that is pretty damn creative.
Careful and precise are not the standards for copyright protection. Creative is. In the case of an image which is completely from a single public domain source, there just isn't anything creative being done. You stitch together the tiles in a completely algorithmic manner. If anyone holds the copyright on the resulting work, it would be the person who chose what scene to picture (the user of the software), not the person who wrote the software. That is also the person who put the work in fixed form, another requirement for copyright protection.
I say show me the creativity. I don't see it. I actually don't see much creativity in any satellite photography, but when it comes to creativity from Google in a typical Google Earth shot, I don't see any at all.
The algorithm would be creative, which should be enough. Would you say a painting made using a rubber stamp wasn't creative because anyone can cover stamps in paint and put them on a piece of paper? The creativity comes in making the stamp, and so, what you make with that stamp is copyrightable.
On 11/26/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Careful and precise are not the standards for copyright protection. Creative is. In the case of an image which is completely from a single public domain source, there just isn't anything creative being done. You stitch together the tiles in a completely algorithmic manner. If anyone holds the copyright on the resulting work, it would be the person who chose what scene to picture (the user of the software), not the person who wrote the software. That is also the person who put the work in fixed form, another requirement for copyright protection.
I say show me the creativity. I don't see it. I actually don't see much creativity in any satellite photography, but when it comes to creativity from Google in a typical Google Earth shot, I don't see any at all.
The algorithm would be creative, which should be enough.
Depends on the purpose of the algorithm. If the purpose of the algorithm is, for instance, to simulate as accurately as possible the curvature of earth, then while the algorithm itself might be creative, and worthy of copyright, the resulting output wouldn't be. (If the purpose of the algorithm is to make a pretty picture, then it probably would be.)
Would you say a painting made using a rubber stamp wasn't creative because anyone can cover stamps in paint and put them on a piece of paper? The creativity comes in making the stamp, and so, what you make with that stamp is copyrightable.
A painting made using a rubber stamp is a copy of the stamp. Not all output from computer algorithms are copies of that algorithm.
Would you say a photograph made using a camera was copyrighted by the person who wrote the firmware on the camera (the image stabilization algorithm, the sharpening algorithm, etc.)? Of course not. The algorithm is likely copyrighted by the programmer (the standard for creativity in computer software is unfortunately very low), but that doesn't mean the output of the software is copyrighted by the programmer.
Anthony
Depends on the purpose of the algorithm. If the purpose of the algorithm is, for instance, to simulate as accurately as possible the curvature of earth, then while the algorithm itself might be creative, and worthy of copyright, the resulting output wouldn't be. (If the purpose of the algorithm is to make a pretty picture, then it probably would be.)
It sounds like you're saying copyright depends on the intention of the creator - I'm not sure that's true. If the output is the same, it shouldn't matter if it was intended to be an accurate representation or intended to look pretty. It's the same piece of work, created the same way, so it has the same copyright.
Would you say a painting made using a rubber stamp wasn't creative because anyone can cover stamps in paint and put them on a piece of paper? The creativity comes in making the stamp, and so, what you make with that stamp is copyrightable.
A painting made using a rubber stamp is a copy of the stamp. Not all output from computer algorithms are copies of that algorithm.
Would you say a photograph made using a camera was copyrighted by the person who wrote the firmware on the camera (the image stabilization algorithm, the sharpening algorithm, etc.)? Of course not. The algorithm is likely copyrighted by the programmer (the standard for creativity in computer software is unfortunately very low), but that doesn't mean the output of the software is copyrighted by the programmer.
Yeah, it's a bad analogy. Sorry.
On 11/26/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Depends on the purpose of the algorithm. If the purpose of the algorithm is, for instance, to simulate as accurately as possible the curvature of earth, then while the algorithm itself might be creative, and worthy of copyright, the resulting output wouldn't be. (If the purpose of the algorithm is to make a pretty picture, then it probably would be.)
It sounds like you're saying copyright depends on the intention of the creator - I'm not sure that's true. If the output is the same, it shouldn't matter if it was intended to be an accurate representation or intended to look pretty. It's the same piece of work, created the same way, so it has the same copyright.
Well, I certainly shouldn't have been saying that copyright depends on the intention of the creator, because I'm fairly sure case law disagrees with me on that one. If the purpose of the algorithm were simply to make a pretty picture, and the output of it happened to be an extremely accurate representation of the curvature of the earth - well, I really don't have any clue what the courts would say. But it doesn't matter, because the chances of that are pretty much nil.
In the hypothetical I'm talking about, I assume the purpose is to make an accurate representation of the curvature of the earth, and that the algorithm succeeds in serving that purpose.
We're getting a bit too hypothetical, though. I don't have the source code to Google Earth sitting in front of me (and even if I did I wouldn't care enough to thoroughly examine every line), so I really can only really speculate as to what they're doing to manipulate the imagery they receive from others. One interesting thing to look at is just how much Google Earth screeshots differ from 1) World Wind screenshots; and 2) the real thing - from that location and angle. Of course, once you've done that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, you might as well just use one of the two "safe" images.
Anthony
On 11/24/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/24/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
Note that some of the images claim "PD".
In that case the uploaders need a stern talking to. It's hard to imagine that people don't realise that imagery from Google Earth is copyrighted when it's plastered all over the bottom of the screen, and appears in the screenshots.
Just because something claims to be copyrighted doesn't mean it is.
Much of Google Earth imagery *is* public domain. Google has not added the necessary creativity to change this.
That said, it's much safer to just use NASA Worldwind.
I didn't say that Google has copyright over imagery in Google Earth. I said that the imagery is copyrighted.
And I'm saying that not all of it is.
If you look near the bottom of the screen you'll see the names of the copyright holder(s), the imaging companies that Google has sourced the satellite imagery from, DigitalGlobe for example.
Yes, and if you tilt the image slightly certain copyright claims will come up (I think DigitalGlobe is one) simply because a sliver of the horizon (one pixel wide type stuff) is derived from that image. Again, just because there is a claim of copyright doesn't mean it's true.
On 11/23/06, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
What should we do with the screenshots taken from Google Earth? I see that more and more of them are uploaded on en.wiki, for example to illustrate things such as high-schools or cities. But, does the fair-use claim hold up?
Delete them all. Unless they're used in [[Google Earth]] to demonstrate how the program looks, there's simply no valid reason to include them when:
a) free alternatives are almost always available via WorldWind (especially for the US) b) the coordinates templates [1] allow people to easily look the same information up themselves, with only two clicks of the mouse, and with no copyright issues whatsoever.
Note that some of the images claim "PD".
In that case the uploaders need a stern talking to. It's hard to imagine that people don't realise that imagery from Google Earth is copyrighted when it's plastered all over the bottom of the screen, and appears in the screenshots.
-- (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Coordinates_templates
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
YES Delete them all, as WorldWind is a free alternative and they all fial criteria 1. When deleting, point them to http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/ so they get the free program.
Also, not ALL the stuff on WorldWind seems to be PD, as long as you stay away from "Zoom IT" feature (uncheck it from layer manager) you're fine.
*** drini [n=84fe6805@madmappers.freeearthfoundation.com] has joined #worldwind *** Topic is: World Wind Bugs to Squash before release page: http://www.worldwindcentral.com/wiki/World_Wind_1.3.6_-_1.4_Bug_List_For_Rel... | 2bn.net = new upload site | TwoBeds is back-ish *** Topic set by ShockFire [Sat Nov 4 19:46:49 2006] *** drini Mordoch maurizioSA ominiverdi m_k Starfury^ spoop T_Servo Hillwang +nhv ctweedie mlucas_ what_nick _adam_gfx _dreaminofjeanni +Llynix +ShockFire NeoThermic mazzanet Apagador Selar Bull_[UK] nelson Ghostwolf +Nowak- @ChanServ @Nowak hacker Kuutio Puuhis anselm *** Channel created on Tue Nov 16 13:51:47 2004 *** #worldwind [freenode-info] if you need to send private messages, please register: http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#privmsg <drini> while worldwind is free, what's the copyright status of the images? <drini> are they PD? (i.e. can I use the images it produced as PD as NASA is a gov agency) ? <m_k> Landsat, BM and USGS are public domain <drini> how do I know if I'm using only them?= I want a view of Irvine CA <Bull_[UK]> US images should be pd <m_k> by looking at the layer manager? :) <drini> :) great idea <drini> yes Bull_[UK] , but I wanted to know for sure, specially when I'm doing any place, not just US <drini> (for wikipedia licensing details) <m_k> everything that comes with WW OOTB is PD (not sure about ZoomIt!) <drini> ok I'l stay away from zoomit <Bull_[UK]> http://www.worldwindcentral.com/wiki/Add-on:ZoomIt%21 - zoomit details <Bull_[UK]> you can checkthe specific liceses <drini> great <maurizioSA> Robben Island is copyrighted <maurizioSA> if you want to use you must send details to info at madmappers dot com and I might get permission <maurizioSA> depending what is for <Bull_[UK]> the US stuff should be ok its from gov agencies iirc <Bull_[UK]> and new zealand is from LINZ <Bull_[UK]> http://www.linz.govt.nz/home/index.html <Bull_[UK]> what_nick - is LINZ data D? <Bull_[UK]> PD* <drini> how do I know a map is getting its data from linz or madmappers... within the program <what_nick_> pd ? <Bull_[UK]> public domain <what_nick_> yes <Bull_[UK]> drini - open layer manager->zoomitthen untick any layers you are unsure about <drini> ok <Bull_[UK]> like untick south africa <maurizioSA> in ZoomIt! South Africa is mad mappers supplied image <maurizioSA> If there is any commercial aspect I can tell you now that I will not manage to get permission <drini> no, I?m only interested in PD stuff <drini> we want to delete as much google map "fair use" images that have been uploaded <maurizioSA> even the name Robben Island has been registered since it is a world heritage site administered by a private company <drini> into wikipedia <Bull_[UK]> cool <what_nick_> :)