[WikiEN-l] Google Earth copyright (now that you bring it up)

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> On 1/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>>
>>>On 1/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The challenge to Google's claim of copyright on the image (which in
>>>>itself was educational) didn't come until the image had already been
>>>>up there for months.  In fact, the image itself didn't even include a
>>>>claim of copyright by Google, it was from one of the very first
>>>>editions of the software when Google didn't yet have the audacity to
>>>>make such an obviously specious claim. (*)
>>>>
>>>>Anthony
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>(*) The image in question was exported from Google Earth (example at
>>>http://www.newrecruit.org/images/blog/googleearth/paris.jpg).  The
>>>compass on the bottom left was not present and neither was the
>>>copyright notice on the bottom right (not because I removed them, but
>>>because Google had not yet added them).  Like the image I presented
>>>there were no 3-D elements.  I think it's clear to anyone with any
>>>knowledge of copyright law that Google has *zero* copyright interest
>>>in such an image.  You don't get copyright on something simply because
>>>it is part of the output of a program you wrote, and all the rest of
>>>the possibly copyrighted features are held by someone else (in the
>>>case of my photo, the state of New Jersey).
>>>
>>
>>I know in France the architect has copyright photos of their buildings,
>>but the State of New Jersey has copyright over your photo of...?
>>
> 
> 
> It's not my photo I was talking about, but the aerial photos used in
> Google Earth, which, in this particular case, were made as a work for
> hire of the State of New Jersey.  Google obtained these aerial photos
> and then manipulated them *per my instructions* and sent them to me. 
> As I'm the one who chose all the creative elements (the location, the
> angle, the zoom level), I'm the one who owns the copyright on the
> derivative work, not Google.  All they did was provide me with the
> tools to create the image.  They own the copyright no more than
> FUJIFILM owns the copyright to [[Image:Capemaypoint.JPG]] (which is
> the actual photo I took from that location).
> 
> Frankly, I think this conclusion is pretty much indisputable by anyone
> with basic knowledge of copyright law.  In fact, it follows naturally
> from the absurdity of the law being any other way.  The Mozilla
> Foundation (or is it the Mozilla Corporation?) doesn't own this text
> simply because I used their software to create it.  Cakewalk doesn't
> own the songs just 'cause they're created using their music production
> software.  Corel doesn't own a painting because it was designed using
> Corel Paint.  Likewise, Google doesn't own an image simply because you
> used Google Earth to create it.
> 
> Discussing this issue is, in and of itself, educational.  And using an
> image to facilitate such a discussion is fair use, which means it's
> not illegal and not an act of civil disobediance.
> 
> Of course, that discussion was kept to the talk page.  The original
> purpose of my creation and distribution of the image was to show how
> well Google Earth can create a particular real life photo.  Even if
> that's not educational (and it is), it's use for the purposes of
> commentary, which in many ways is actually a stronger argument for
> fair use than merely educational purposes anyway.
> 
> And frankly, Wikipedia should try to keep most, if not all, of its use
> *in the article space* to *commentary*, not simply educational
> purposes.  When you are commenting on a work, there is no real
> substitute for the actual work itself.  Pretty much any other use
> (save parody, which isn't really applicable to Wikipedia), can be
> theoretically substituted rather adequetely without resorting to fair
> use.  Even if Dolly the Sheep is dead and all the images of her are
> copyrighted, it's still possible for an artist to look at *several*
> images and create an original work which accurately depicts what the
> sheep looks like.
> 
> Someone else mentioned how fair use images aren't treated like fair
> use text.  Well, that's essentially how fair use text is treated.  If
> you're commenting on the quote itself, then you use the quote itself. 
> If, instead, you're using the information contained in the quote, then
> you read up on a bunch of different sources and paraphrase it, copying
> the facts but not the expression.  The only real difference is that
> there are a lot more Wikipedians who are skilled at writing but not
> nearly as much at drawing.
> 
> Anyway, I've turned this into a rant about something completely
> different.  Sorry.
> 

Actually I think you've just highlighted a point where Wikipedia /does/
have a claim to fair use: commentary. Parody and satire are not within
the scope of an NPOV encyclopedia, but commentary probably *is*.

BTW, what is the current reason fair use images are allowed on en:?

-- 
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 556 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060120/00ba4196/attachment.pgp