In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material.>>
Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position" is copyrightable?
Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the map, as an entirety is copyrightable.
W.J.
(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@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted material.>>
Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position" is copyrightable?
Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the map, as an entirety is copyrightable.
W.J. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dan Rosenthal wrote:
(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
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
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
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
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
It may have started off that way, but my impression was it quickly became "All maps are free". That may have been a misinterpretation of GerardM's post.
My broader point is that the situation is not entirely black and white. Blanket statements that "all X can never be done" are a bit dangerous to make.
-Dan
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@rochester.edu jamesofur@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@gmail.com wrote:
(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@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted
material.>>
Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position"
is
copyrightable?
Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the
map,
as an entirety is copyrightable.
W.J. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Sorry. they are facts and therefore NOT copyrightable.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.comwrote:
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@rochester.edu jamesofur@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@gmail.comwrote:
(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@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted
material.>>
Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position"
is
copyrightable?
Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the
map,
as an entirety is copyrightable.
W.J. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM, James Alexander jamesofur@gmail.com wrote:
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.
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
Andre Engels 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
In US copyright law, "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works". Since a pair of coordinates is not a work, it can not be a derivative work, even if it is based upon one or more pre-existing works.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Andre Engels 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
In US copyright law, "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works". Since a pair of coordinates is not a work, it can not be a derivative work, even if it is based upon one or more pre-existing works.
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
jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Andre Engels 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
In US copyright law, "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works". Since a pair of coordinates is not a work, it can not be a derivative work, even if it is based upon one or more pre-existing works.
As I said, the selection of these coordinates is a work, and if you dont have any image available you cannot do so.
Of course I can. I could go there and measure the coordinates, for example.
What is the contract between you and google to use this data? Are you
I need no contract with anyone to use the data I create.
sure that you are allowed to just take the points and relicense them under the CC-SA?
Not only am I not allowed, it is impossible for anyone to allow or forbid it.
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 don't think we will run out of interesting point to select any time soon...
By the way, this seems like a good time to mention http://www.google.com/moderator/#15/e=1d33&t=1d33.40&q=1d33.10309 and http://www.systemed.net/blog/?p=100
Hoi, The COLLECTION of such facts is a work. A single fact is not a work. The collection of single facts creates a new collection however, claiming copyright because of it being expressed in a certain format is similar to Microsoft claiming copyright to all MS/Word documents.
When an aggregation of data can be expressed in several file formats, claiming exclusive copyright based on the result of one such format is not only a travesty but also impossible to maintain. The fact that many of the facts may have originated from the use of one application among others makes it equally problematic for any of them to claim infringement on the terms of use.
In my opinion this is just FUD.. Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Accepting such restrictions based on sources that have no formal qualifications is imho hare brained. A good counter example is the use of OpenStreetMap after the Haiti disaster.. it is based on the same kinds of data that is put into doubt in a different context.
Let me finish with a question, do you seriously consider that Google would sue the Wikimedia Foundation for it having geo dat ??? Thanks, GerardM
On 1 April 2010 09:23, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com < jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Andre Engels 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
In US copyright law, "A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works". Since a pair of coordinates is not a work, it can not be a derivative work, even if it is based upon one or more pre-existing works.
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@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@gmail.com wrote:
A good counter example is the use of OpenStreetMap after the Haiti disaster.. it is based on the same kinds of data that is put into doubt in a different context.
That was done only after OSM received explicit permission to use that data.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Haiti/Imagery_and_data_source...
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
Hoi, We are talking at cross purposes. What I am talking about are applications of geo data like these
- http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/03/swedes-have-their-map-support.ht... - http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/03/danes-have-their-map-support.htm...
The data in both instances is extracted from Wikipedia articles. They provide the geo locations relating to Wikipedia articles. In one instance the data is projected on top of Google Maps and in the other on top of findfey.
There is no vector data involved just projection on top of existing maps. Thanks, GerardM
On 1 April 2010 11:13, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com < jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
A good counter example is the use of OpenStreetMap after the Haiti disaster.. it is based on the same kinds of data that is put into doubt in a different context.
That was done only after OSM received explicit permission to use that data.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Haiti/Imagery_and_data_source...
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We are talking at cross purposes. What I am talking about are applications of geo data like these
- http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/03/swedes-have-their-map-support.ht... - http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/03/danes-have-their-map-support.htm...
The data in both instances is extracted from Wikipedia articles. They provide the geo locations relating to Wikipedia articles. In one instance the data is projected on top of Google Maps and in the other on top of findfey.
There is no vector data involved just projection on top of existing maps.
Projection on top of existing maps creates a new mashup, that is not the issue, it creates liabilities only for the hosting of that map itself. But where do these points come from? Is that not a collection of points derived from some unknown source that might be in violation of some contract or copyright? What about the EU database law? Is that not a significant extract of the database?
We cannot include this data back into openstreetmap. I have also worked on extractors to parse out the articles and produce OSM files, and got blasted for doing so. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-July/016231.html
There has been a discussion on this before: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-May/036582.html
OSM policy states that we are not allowed to import Google derived points.
If you are mapping a new area that is only empty space, it is good to start with data that is available, out of copyright maps, some of the geonames data and if possible wikipedia articles. They can provide locations to start with as reference locations.
My interest is improving the data in OSM directly and finding sources that are usable to create the base layer.
Wikipedia is not yet a source of map data that can be used in accordance with OSM policy, and there are good reasons why not.
mike
On this note, there is no real discussion of the copyright and licensing issues on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Goog...
It says : There are various ways to obtain geographic coordinates. Note that regardless of the source of coordinates, it is good practice to evaluate whether they appear reasonable at first glance.
Be sure to read the licensing information carefully so that data providers receive an appropriate attribution.
So how are these coordinates being attributed?
mike
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@googlemail.com < jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com> wrote:
On this note, there is no real discussion of the copyright and licensing issues on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Goog...
It says : There are various ways to obtain geographic coordinates. Note that regardless of the source of coordinates, it is good practice to evaluate whether they appear reasonable at first glance.
Be sure to read the licensing information carefully so that data providers receive an appropriate attribution.
So how are these coordinates being attributed?
mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@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
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
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@googlemail.com < jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com> wrote:
On this note, there is no real discussion of the copyright and licensing issues on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic_coordinates#Goog...
It says : There are various ways to obtain geographic coordinates. Note that regardless of the source of coordinates, it is good practice to evaluate whether they appear reasonable at first glance.
Be sure to read the licensing information carefully so that data providers receive an appropriate attribution.
So how are these coordinates being attributed?
mike
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:28 PM, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
How? By having people look on their pages every now and again, and see around which coordinates they are at a certain point? If that is "mass database extraction" then simply looking at the maps is "mass database extraction on a truly enormous unprecedented scale". Besides, even _if_ we would agree that pulling some bits of data from a map or a picture based on a database which probably is not even _in_ that database as such would entail "mass database extraction", then still the only one breaking anything would be the person who originally determined that village X is at coordinates Y, not the people who next copy this bit of knowledge.
jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
1. Is there mass database extraction of any particular service? If so, who by? Editors have used multiple ways of coming up with these lat/long values; GPS location reader, Sat Nav, Google Maps / Earth, OS maps, maps by other company online and printed, ... Unless there's a bot somewhere that go through one particular service, (say) Google Maps / Earth extracting data that I'm not aware of....
2. The contract is between the service provider (again say) Google, and the end user of that service, i.e. the person who access it and later input the value into WP. Nowhere did Wikimedia Foundation come to any agreement with Google. One can't violate a contract that never existed.
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?
You are assuming there is 1) any violation of contract in the first place; 2) the wikipedia community is aware of it; 3) said community is condoning it.
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
If you're outside the EU, then not a lot. The EU has the concept of database right, but that does not exist in other part of the world. Wikipedia is operated under US federal and California (?) state laws, where mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and unprotected.
KTC
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
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.
- Is there mass database extraction of any particular service? If so, who
by? Editors have used multiple ways of coming up with these lat/long values; GPS location reader, Sat Nav, Google Maps / Earth, OS maps, maps by other company online and printed,
Well since WP does not have any source tag for locations, it will be hard to tell. Without proper attribution of the information sources, we can only assume the worst.
If there was some tagging of source of the coordinates, it would be better.
There needs to be some citation on the source of the coordinates. Just like images get deleted off of commons without any attribution, you should delete locations and maps that are not cited properly. Even the usage of the Haiti sat data requires attribution. It is an international standard.
- The contract is between the service provider (again say) Google, and the
end user of that service, i.e. the person who access it and later input the value into WP. Nowhere did Wikimedia Foundation come to any agreement with Google. One can't violate a contract that never existed.
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?
You are assuming there is 1) any violation of contract in the first place;
Well, it is my laypersons interpretation of the contract. Lets assume it for one moment.
- the wikipedia community is aware of it;
As I said,there are not many good sources for map data. if you look at the instructions on how to collection points, you would get the impression that it is just fine to follow those instructions. WP has extensive instructions on how to use restricted maps for data collection.
- said community is condoning it.
Well if you read the page on how to get coordinates there is more information on how to get the data from these sources and very little on warnings.
I can say that the OSM community is absolutely not condoning it, up to the point that they say that we cannot use WP data.
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
If you're outside the EU, then not a lot. The EU has the concept of database right, but that does not exist in other part of the world. Wikipedia is operated under US federal and California (?) state laws, where mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and unprotected.
I am living in Germany.. So count me out. Are there no Wikipedia servers hosted in Europe? That also means that if I were to start to use this data freely it would open me up to potential litigation. What type of freedom of knowledge is that if you can only use it in one country?
As I said, you will have to come to terms that there are no real good freely available sources of map data out there, and sticking your head in the sand is just harming the OSM project.
If WP would come clean and call out to people to do some real mapping work and help the OSM project then you would be producing truly free knowledge about the world.
What I would like to see: 1. a stricter sourcing policy for the maps and point data, There should be a strict citation policy for all geographic data. Ideally the data and maps would come from OSM and adhere to OSM policy. 2. speedy deletion of unsourced / unattributed maps . I have already marked the Albania map for improper attribution. I guess I can start to do that with all the other maps as well. 3. better guidelines on collecting map data, there has to be some type of warning about TOS violoations when you add in datapoints. 4. a harmonisation with the OSM policy and a common agreement.
Right now all we have is both sides (WP/OSM) not working together or talking to each other on this issue. The result is that there is less collaboration. Why dont we take this thread to the osm legal and stomp it out until we reach an agreement?
thanks,
mike
This whole thread is striking me as akin to a child going "but why" every five seconds ad infinitem.
Let's look at the issues here.
1. Google (and other companies, such as Microsoft and Yahoo) make available satellite / aeroplane images on the net, free at the point of use, for all to view.
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.
3. By using the geolocation of known reference points on each image block intermediate locations can be interpolated.
4. Geolocation data can also be obtained by hand-held devices and from paper maps and many other sources.
5. "mass database extraction" requires *mass* - ie large proportion or 100% extraction of that data. WP doesn't do that. Any extracts are made individually for each case required. There is no automation in place. Even if one were to presume to consolidate every WP editor into a supposed single entity (which is precluded by the very nature of the projects anyway) it still would not be "mass".
6. "mass database extraction" requires *database* - ie accessing that data in the form of data tuples. WP doesn't do that. If this source is used it is manually by eye by an individual reading and entering the data.
7. There is no database right applicable to this process for the same reason: there is no access by a WP editor to a *database( of tuples or otherwise.
8. Stating the source of a fact - any fact - within WP isn't required for anything which is self-evident ("The sky appears blue during the day and is dark at night") or easily provable ("gravity on earth pulls things down"). Geographic *co-ordinates* per se therefore do not need a source.
9. WP are not slavishly copying the source data, nor are we using the agglomeration of that data in the form of a map. As such we are not contravening the copyright nor contract law which may or may not apply.
10. What OSM does is not - directly - of concern to WP. And vice-versa. Obviously however one should hope that an equitable and valid way can be found to share information.
Alison
ps. The idea that satellite image is single POV is just silly!
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Alison M. Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
This whole thread is striking me as akin to a child going "but why" every five seconds ad infinitem.
I am sorry that you feel that way, at least some people have acknowledged some of my points. I wish we would not have to have this conversation. Hopefully we can make some progress on this issue.
- Google (and other companies, such as Microsoft and Yahoo) make available satellite / aeroplane images on the net, free at the point of use, for all to view.
They are not for free, they are bound by very restricted terms of use. That is the point that is being ignored. You cannot use them except for agreeing to the TOS. There are very few other sources of map data if you want just freely available ones.
- 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.
Copyright is not the issue, it is the terms of service.
- Geolocation data can also be obtained by hand-held devices and from paper maps and many other sources.
And not all of them are permitted to be used in OSM.
- "mass database extraction" requires *mass* - ie large proportion or 100% extraction of that data. WP doesn't do that. Any extracts are made individually for each case required. There is no automation in place. Even if one were to presume to consolidate every WP editor into a supposed single entity (which is precluded by the very nature of the projects anyway) it still would not be "mass".
I mean that the total number of extracted points are massive. Even if they are done by lots of editors.
- Stating the source of a fact - any fact - within WP isn't required for anything which is self-evident ("The sky appears blue during the day and is dark at night") or easily provable ("gravity on earth pulls things down"). Geographic *co-ordinates* per se therefore do not need a source.
Again, if you have access to the imagery of course. But how can you access it without agreeing to the TOS?
- What OSM does is not - directly - of concern to WP. And vice-versa. Obviously however one should >hope that an equitable and valid way can be found to share information.
Yes, and I have not been asked not to import WP data, so I guess it is just my problem.
ps. The idea that satellite image is single POV is just silly!
It is a viewpoint! a very expensive point of view where light enters the camera. It can be wrong, skewed etc. Tracing from a single image because there are no others is really not a neutral thing. It could be off from the real location by kilometers.
Ok, I am going to just leave this for now, sorry for taking up your time.
mike
On 1 April 2010 14:58, Alison M. Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
- 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.
Minor detail - although this is a valid point philosophically, as I understand it the current state of things is that such imagery is in fact considered to have a valid copyright, even if the creative input is "let's send up a plane and set this automatic camera going" or "let's build a robot with a camera and start it in a given place" or "let's send a probe to Saturn and have it take pictures." NASA images are PD not because of no creativity, but because they're US Federal Government works.
- d.
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 worldwind and other public domain or open licensed sources. (gps okay too, though that gets into other questions). But the deed is done in regards to coordinates and I see enough consensus among wikipedians about facts not being copyrightable, so I'm not so interested in debating that
The best way to link osm to wikipedia is not to import wikipedia coordinates. Rather there is an osm wikipedia tag to enter the name/ URL of an associated wikipedia article
Aude
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 1, 2010, at 11:21 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 April 2010 14:58, Alison M. Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
- 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.
Minor detail - although this is a valid point philosophically, as I understand it the current state of things is that such imagery is in fact considered to have a valid copyright, even if the creative input is "let's send up a plane and set this automatic camera going" or "let's build a robot with a camera and start it in a given place" or "let's send a probe to Saturn and have it take pictures." NASA images are PD not because of no creativity, but because they're US Federal Government works.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Aude aude.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Thank you so much, that is the most rational explaination I have heard today! mike
On 1 April 2010 19:30, Aude aude.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Although deriving geocoordinates from google maps for wikipedia (under us law) is okay, I would prefer not doing so and use osm, NASA worldwind and other public domain or open licensed sources. (gps okay too, though that gets into other questions). But the deed is done in regards to coordinates and I see enough consensus among wikipedians about facts not being copyrightable, so I'm not so interested in debating that
Except it doesn't stop at geocoordinates.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Formula_One_circuits_maps
Is for the most part directly traced from various google earth satellite pics.
Дана Thursday 01 April 2010 20:30:10 Aude написа:
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
This is so wrong on several levels. Databases can be copyrighted under US law, facts are not copyrighted under UK law, an image is not a database, deriving coordinates from Google Maps is OK under other laws and so on.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 2:21 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs wrote:
Дана Thursday 01 April 2010 20:30:10 Aude написа:
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
This is so wrong on several levels. Databases can be copyrighted under US law, facts are not copyrighted under UK law, an image is not a database, deriving coordinates from Google Maps is OK under other laws and so on.
geni writes:
Except it doesn't stop at geocoordinates.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Formula_One_circuits_maps
Is for the most part directly traced from various google earth satellite pics.
I have the impression that the rules of thumb used to extract data from maps on both projects are just that -- rule of thumb, based on the collective impressions of, for instance, what is an appropriate level of reverence for a restrictive TOS that claims more than national laws allow.
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?] Commons, for instance, is careful with the licenses it accepts, but not so explicit in how it validates licenses as to make it easy for physical publishers to use Commons photos in mass-produced books.
It would be good to have a Project-neutral place to discuss copyright and reuse policies across free knowledge projects, not only Wikimedia projects. This mailing list is not the place. Perhaps the Meta-wiki is acceptable for this, though other suggestions are welcome; Meta already sees its share of discussion of potential or parallel efforts to expand free knowledge in various directions.
SJ
On 2 April 2010 08:15, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
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.
It varies. Geographical data is a particularly weak area for wikipedia.
[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?]
Encyclopedia Britannica uses a lot of commons images these days.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 7:36 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 April 2010 08:15, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
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.
It varies. Geographical data is a particularly weak area for wikipedia.
True. And having cc-sa text makes reuse in books much easier tha nit was under gfdl. But we aren't working in a space where we have competitors waiting to pounce on any opportunity to make our lives more difficult, which makes a difference in priorities.
[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?]
Encyclopedia Britannica uses a lot of commons images these days.
... 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. I'm not sure if the decrease is them getting used to a different process or Commons getting better about explicit verification of claimed licenses.
SJ
On 3 April 2010 01:06, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
... 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.
Lying. They still have no idea who I am yet I know they use at least one of my images.
Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
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
If you're outside the EU, then not a lot. The EU has the concept of database right, but that does not exist in other part of the world. Wikipedia is operated under US federal and California (?) state laws, where mere collections of facts are considered unoriginal and unprotected.
And taking that a little further: If Google's Terms of Service are in fact a contract they would include choosing the jurisdiction of California courts and law, and purport to override Conflict of Laws legislation.
Ec
Hoi. The facts harvested from Wikipedia have to be compiled in order to be used in an overlay. The format of the overlay may be determined by the application that uses such an overlay. The process of creating such an overlay however is mechanical, slavish, it has no relation whatsoever with the map it is used upon either pictorial or photographic.
The same data can be used to generate an overlay for another map application. It would be created in a similar mechanical, slavish way. The notion that the facts used in such a way are copyrighted because they are used as an overlay on something pictorial or photographic is unlikely to hold. Thanks, GerardM
On 31 March 2010 22:12, Dan Rosenthal swatjester@gmail.com wrote:
(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@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com writes:
In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a rift between what is supposedly creative commons and what is really creative commons. Basically wikipedia is turning into a minefield of copyrighted
material.>>
Are you suggesting that the mechanical determination of a longitute and latitude of some object is copyrightable material? I.E. it's "position"
is
copyrightable?
Or am I reading this wrong? Perhaps you're suggesting merely that the
map,
as an entirety is copyrightable.
W.J. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@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
The use of the google maps (and other copyrighted maps) are restricted and derivatives of those maps similarly restricted. However what the actual geo points that you may get from those systems are not restricted (because they are not copyrightable).
It is an understandable confusion to be honest, they understandably try to claim copyright over any derivative they possibly can, the fact remains In many ways them attempting to claim copyright over any derivative work isn't a problem (in this regard) because they just can't claim copyright over those points. Well they can CLAIM whatever they want but a copyright claim on the geo points is useless, as W.J said you can also get them from USGS or other sources if you'd prefer but I wouldn't be worried about it (and I don't think we should change our stance on it).
The issue of being worried about actual maps being uploaded under the wrong license is completely understandable and a separate issue, I know I've nominated at least a couple that I found to be from a source that wasn't free and is definitly something we need to be watchful for. I do know though that there are alot up there that are based on free USGS maps and the like that ARE legitimate (though they should say where they are derived from.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@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 4:29 PM, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com < jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com> wrote:
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
- 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org