In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those positions for many of the locations and they are only available from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not usable for openstreetmap.>>
I'm fairly sure you're wrong about the copyrightability of "high quality satellite images". Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? My suspicion is that these are free images, they are merely rehosting, and so not copyrightable.
W.J.
On Mar 31, 2010, at 4:04 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't own their own satellites. So from where did they get them?
I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :)
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:04 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those positions for many of the locations and they are only available from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not usable for openstreetmap.>>
I'm fairly sure you're wrong about the copyrightability of "high quality satellite images". Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? My suspicion is that these are free images, they are merely rehosting, and so not copyrightable.
I have been looking to purchase sat images for usage in tracing for osm. It is not possible to purchase images that you can share with other people in general. Even if you have the rights to trace and extract vector information. So they must have a special deal on that imagery. We dont know what license they have and what rights, it is pretty simple.
The source of google images you can see pretty easily in google earth, just turn on all the "more" layer, you will see each image and where it comes from. It is the same data used in google maps.
The good imagery is from digitalglobe, geoeye and spot for the area that i am interested in, for example we are working on mapping the city of shkoder, in google earth, you can click on the area http://archive.digitalglobe.com/archive/showBrowse.php?catID=1010010001E4380...
But the point is, even if google gets these rights, it does not mean they have to give them to us.
The digiglobe allows for some users the right to create vector traces from the data, but does not mean google gives us these rights.
http://nsidc.org/data/barrow/digitalglobe_license_form.html . DERIVED WORKS. Derived works containing imagery data from the Products are covered by this License. Derived works that do not contain imagery data from the Products are not covered by this License. For example a vector map (features, buildings, waterlines, classification) derived from a Basic Product is outside of this license.
mike
Mike,
Thank you for starting this thread. The most important point, from my perspective, is that the policies on OSM and Wikipedia are not compatible, in a way that makes geodata from Wikipedia time-consuming or impossible for some OSM editors to use.
We should certainly see how we can align policies about maps and map data so that work isn't duplicated or wasted. If in the process we discover that OSM standards are stricter than copyright demands, or that WP standards are more lax than they should be, we may be able to correct those points.
SJ
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:25 PM, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:04 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those positions for many of the locations and they are only available from non free sources. Because wikipedia does not have a problem with them being submitted in mass, it makes the total collection in effect not usable for openstreetmap.>>
I'm fairly sure you're wrong about the copyrightability of "high quality satellite images". Since Google themselves did not produce these, they don't own their own satellites. So from where did they get them? My suspicion is that these are free images, they are merely rehosting, and so not copyrightable.
I have been looking to purchase sat images for usage in tracing for osm. It is not possible to purchase images that you can share with other people in general. Even if you have the rights to trace and extract vector information. So they must have a special deal on that imagery. We dont know what license they have and what rights, it is pretty simple.
The source of google images you can see pretty easily in google earth, just turn on all the "more" layer, you will see each image and where it comes from. It is the same data used in google maps.
The good imagery is from digitalglobe, geoeye and spot for the area that i am interested in, for example we are working on mapping the city of shkoder, in google earth, you can click on the area http://archive.digitalglobe.com/archive/showBrowse.php?catID=1010010001E4380...
But the point is, even if google gets these rights, it does not mean they have to give them to us.
The digiglobe allows for some users the right to create vector traces from the data, but does not mean google gives us these rights.
http://nsidc.org/data/barrow/digitalglobe_license_form.html . DERIVED WORKS. Derived works containing imagery data from the Products are covered by this License. Derived works that do not contain imagery data from the Products are not covered by this License. For example a vector map (features, buildings, waterlines, classification) derived from a Basic Product is outside of this license.
mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Mike,
Thank you for starting this thread. The most important point, from my perspective, is that the policies on OSM and Wikipedia are not compatible, in a way that makes geodata from Wikipedia time-consuming or impossible for some OSM editors to use.
We should certainly see how we can align policies about maps and map data so that work isn't duplicated or wasted. If in the process we discover that OSM standards are stricter than copyright demands, or that WP standards are more lax than they should be, we may be able to correct those points.
Exactly, that is my point. I just want some clarity and some direction on this. I am a big proponent of wikipedia and I would love to see a closer cooperation between them.
Some of my osm friends have given me a tip, the point is that the google maps are not about US copyright law , but also about european database law, and more importantly about contract laws.
Google payed $500 Million for the exclusive usage of geoeye-1 sat photos, and they cover the publication and usage of these photos by CONTRACT LAW, and click through terms of service.
You should read this blog about this topic as well, and the thousands of comments http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100
Additionally there is a video talk from the SoTM 08 from Ed Parsons on this topic http://vimeo.com/6751141 Ed Parsons: "What Map Maker is / is not" at SOTM08
Thanks for your interesting responses, mike
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:49 AM, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com > Additionally there is a video talk from the SoTM 08 from Ed Parsons on
this topic http://vimeo.com/6751141 Ed Parsons: "What Map Maker is / is not" at SOTM08
Additionally, please see this blog post , it is even more relevant to our discussion. http://www.edparsons.com/2009/09/liberating-your-my-maps-data/ please see the comments thread in there.
Another point my OSM friends made is about non free image policy on WP, there are many rules about using copyrighted photos. These strict policies should be applied to maps and map data as well. How can you be so strict on citations, on photos, but not on locations and map data.
Are google earth points really a fact or are they an point of view? A sat photo is a point of view, way up in the sky and a very expensive and biased one. How can the neutral point of view be upheld if you are taking your data from only one source, just because it is easy to do?
Google is careful to point out that you should not bet your life on their maps, and that they may contain errors. I think that this argument about locations be facts needs to be reviewed as well, because they are not 100% facts.
Another issue is of location points, if you are making an article, then you also have to cite your sources. Just taking from one source is always one sided. In the case of positions, taking from only google who owns the highres photos is questionable. How do you know that this location is correct? What if the single source of the data (where the usage is questionable) is also wrong? How does that fit into the wikipedia policy?
thanks, mike
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org