Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
53 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Mike DuPont
Hi there,

I am working alot on openstreetmap.org and there seems to be a big
difference in how the copyrights of the maps are handled in Wikipedia.

In wikipedia you will find maps that have no real sources claimed, and
they are not checked.
People can just upload any and all maps that they somehow created
themselves, even if they are derived from works that clearly do not
allow a creativecommons sharealike processing of them.

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.

Why is this permitted and encouraged in wikipedia but forbidden in
openstreetmap?
Is there any chance of aligning the policies so that we can use the
map material in wikipedia for openstreetmap?

Do you want to start enforcing stricter checking of the sources of maps?

The idea is that Wikipedia is to host free knowledge, but what good is
this knowledge of the world (maps) if we cannot use it?
If wikipedia were to enforce the same standards for maps, there would
be very few maps available in it.

thanks,
mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

WJhonson
In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[hidden email] 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Mike DuPont
Hoi,
In Wikipedia we have many subjects that have geo coordinates associated with
them. They are facts. Facts cannot be copyrighted. When these facts are
harvested by data mining Wikipedia, you do not have a derived work from what
is the origin of these facts, you have a new collection of facts and as such
people could attempt to copyright such a collection.

Such a collection however is obvious and does not require any originality.
Consequently a subsequent accumulation of facts may be slightly different
and illustrated the absurdity of claiming a copyright on such a collection.

I have been blogging about maps and Wikipedia recently, two applications
were described; a map with references to Wikipedia articles and a map with
Wikipedia articles looking for an illustration.

In my opinion is a blanket prohibition of maps based on information of
Wikipedia plain silly.
Thanks,
     GerardM

http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com



On 31 March 2010 21:20, [hidden email] <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> I am working alot on openstreetmap.org and there seems to be a big
> difference in how the copyrights of the maps are handled in Wikipedia.
>
> In wikipedia you will find maps that have no real sources claimed, and
> they are not checked.
> People can just upload any and all maps that they somehow created
> themselves, even if they are derived from works that clearly do not
> allow a creativecommons sharealike processing of them.
>
> 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.
>
> Why is this permitted and encouraged in wikipedia but forbidden in
> openstreetmap?
> Is there any chance of aligning the policies so that we can use the
> map material in wikipedia for openstreetmap?
>
> Do you want to start enforcing stricter checking of the sources of maps?
>
> The idea is that Wikipedia is to host free knowledge, but what good is
> this knowledge of the world (maps) if we cannot use it?
> If wikipedia were to enforce the same standards for maps, there would
> be very few maps available in it.
>
> thanks,
> mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Dan Rosenthal
In reply to this post by WJhonson
(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, [hidden email] wrote:

> In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [hidden email] 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Cary Bass-4
-----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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuzrj8ACgkQyQg4JSymDYlH7QCgr1DgqtHsBTSwjTDXI9OqB+qS
Y3UAn0a3klujZC32BwatqspcFE8WxOjP
=yBeQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

James Alexander-3
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
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
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
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 <[hidden email]> 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, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > [hidden email] 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
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

James Alexander-3
Sorry. they are facts and therefore NOT copyrightable.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:19 PM, James Alexander <[hidden email]>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.
>
> James Alexander
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
> 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 <[hidden email]>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, [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>> > In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> > [hidden email] 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
>> > [hidden email]
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
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 <[hidden email]> 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, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > [hidden email] 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
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Mike DuPont
In reply to this post by Dan Rosenthal
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

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Mike DuPont
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> (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.>>

Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their
claimed rights.  Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long
points.  If you're concerned than use them.

Start here on my page of genealogy tools
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Sources

Near the top there's a link to the USGS called "Find a Town"
which takes you here
http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=127:1:1089405488282263

You can look for more than just "towns", for example airports, cemeteries,
creeks, whatever.  For example look for Baptist in Arkansas, Hempstead
County and you get eighteen entries with latitude and longitude for the Baptist
churches.

W.J.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

James Alexander-3
In reply to this post by Mike DuPont
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
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
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, [hidden email] <
[hidden email]> 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
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Mike DuPont
In reply to this post by WJhonson
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [hidden email] writes:
>
>
>> (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.>>
>
> Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder over-extends their
> claimed rights.  Regardless the USGS provides these exact same lat/long
> points.  If you're concerned than use them.

I have imported all the geonames for the areas that I am interested
in. That is not the issue.

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.

Now once you start to include points from google mapmaker it even gets
more interesting.

The content that is not available freely are things like business
listings, touristic points of interest, locations of interesting
buildings etc. I am sure there are a large number of those points that
are not available from any free source, except to go there with a gps
and record the location itself.

I think the best thing would be for wikipedia to really think hard
about this, and to make a policy that ensures the locations and maps
are also free from copyright issues so that we can use the information
in osm. Given the incredible user base, you might be able to collect
more unique points and have the truly usable. If wikipedia were to
call out to people to do some real mapping work and not just copying
points out of questionable sources, it would be a great benefit to the
total human knowledge.

thanks,

mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Mike DuPont
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[hidden email] 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.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Philippe Beaudette-2

On Mar 31, 2010, at 4:04 PM, [hidden email] 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. :)


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Cary Bass-4
In reply to this post by Mike DuPont
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[hidden email] wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:45 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> [hidden email] writes:
>>
>>
>>> (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.>>
>> Yes we have examples where a legitimate copyright holder
>> over-extends their claimed rights.  Regardless the USGS provides
>> these exact same lat/long points.  If you're concerned than use
>> them.
>
> I have imported all the geonames for the areas that I am interested
>  in. That is not the issue.
>
> 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.
>
> Now once you start to include points from google mapmaker it even
> gets more interesting.
>
> The content that is not available freely are things like business
> listings, touristic points of interest, locations of interesting
> buildings etc. I am sure there are a large number of those points
> that are not available from any free source, except to go there
> with a gps and record the location itself.
>
> I think the best thing would be for wikipedia to really think hard
> about this, and to make a policy that ensures the locations and
> maps are also free from copyright issues so that we can use the
> information in osm. Given the incredible user base, you might be
> able to collect more unique points and have the truly usable. If
> wikipedia were to call out to people to do some real mapping work
> and not just copying points out of questionable sources, it would
> be a great benefit to the total human knowledge.
>
> thanks,
>
> mike
Use of Google Maps website to derive data does not convey
copyrightability.  That would be like saying that Adobe has copyright
of a graphic design you created in Photoshop, wouldn't it?

Cary
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuzuhYACgkQyQg4JSymDYndtwCfUFduLVHh2WGq7oiT0IpdzTy6
8PgAmwTwfhXguPstBCMWHZbU7BRFnd7a
=NziO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Mike DuPont
In a message dated 3/31/2010 2:08:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :) >>>
> ----------

You are *taking* the picture however, with a mechanical device while you
are excersizing creativity over it's content.  It's your creativity that
creates the copyrightable image, not who owns the mechanism.  That's not the case
with Google satellite images.  There is no creativity involved.

However this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Earth#Copyright

seems to give another alternative using a public domain database of images.

W.J.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Mike DuPont
In reply to this post by WJhonson
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:04 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [hidden email] 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=1010010001E43801

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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Dan Rosenthal
In reply to this post by Cary Bass-4
>>
>>
>> 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
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by James Alexander-3
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:19 PM, James Alexander <[hidden email]> 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


--
André Engels, [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Copyrighted maps and Derived works from copyrighted sources.

metasj
In reply to this post by Mike DuPont
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, [hidden email]
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:04 PM,  <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> [hidden email] 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=1010010001E43801
>
> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123