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

[Fastfission]

I hadn't really thought about until you brought it up, but are there
really any grounds to says that aerial photographs can generate
copyrights at all? There is no creativity involved, especially when
surveying the entire planet. They are about as close as one can get to
a 2-D photograph -- they have no creative input at all, simply labor
and technology (which as we know in the U.S. has not been interpretted
as establishing creativity in and of itself).

The only "transformation" that I know of taking place in these images
is the removal of clouds, but this is simply a manipulation of which
photos are used in any one rendering, and is itself so mechanical and
obvious an idea and implementation that it would seem difficult to
claim it as an expression of artistic creativity.

Of course without a case showing this to be a definitive
interpretation one would not want to base anything like Wikipedia
policy around such a notion (at least, I wouldn't), but it is an
interesting question.

FF

On 1/20/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> 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.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>