Whose map is it anyway..

Hey Richard,

OK interesting point, in this case no it’s not a derived work as the recycling centres do not appear on any of the maps used.

Not sure it is your map/data - you got it from their website. Without that you wouldn’t be able to have done it, so must be at least joint copyright …

So yes, derived data.

But issue is not with your data, but OS. They (legally) interpret your licensing requirement differently ….

At least one of your competitors is sorting this - what’s Google doing about it?

So is it the case that it’s not derived because Google don’t have that in their licensing - if OS imagery/mapping was used it would be derived because that’s how they licence it?

Thats ok with small data sets when you can quickly recreate them from scratch. However say I want to map planning applications and manually recreate our existing data captured over OS maps to google. Doing 700 of these every year from scratch is not very efficient. What we need to be able to do is take our existing derived data and simply be allowed to place it on top of google maps.

@ Another Local Authoirty, Yes that is the real issue I’m afraid I can’t offer a solution to that..

@Tim, no I don’t think that is the case the website itself is protected by copyright, however as the actual locations of the recycling centres themselves are not on the site, and are the product of my interpretation of imagery and local knowledge, they are not subject to Richmond’s copyright.

This point I guess I am having trouble trying to communicate is that any information you publish using the maps API remains your information, by signing up to the Terms of Service you are providing Google with a license to use it..

@Eugene, no the Terms of Service for MapMaker are very similar

So if I create such a map, it’s ok to publish it in my new book about recycling centres?

I somehow suspect that both Google and TeleAtlas would quickly dispute the fact that this is my map.

This is all very interesting but I’ve just located a PDF map on Richmond’s site which shows the location of all the recycling points and associated information in the borough - http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/environment/rubbish_waste_and_recycling/recycling_centres.htm - there is a PDF here.

Now. No one is saying that Ed nicked the information from that map as the positions of some of the the facilities are different (in fact more on Ed’s than Richmond’s)? But it does prove a point - that facilities change over time and information that is provided on paper or PDF type media are quickly out of date and that is why interactive maps are so important as well as properly maintained data - this from a Paleotard (sorry Ed, we do have our uses). And, by the way, Richmond’s map contains no copyright in the PDF - whoops!

Type “recycling near teddington” into google maps, and into the search on openstreetmap.org and see which gives better results…

Chris,

This is a great discussion much needed I think you will agree.. I think you mean interpretation rather than imagination and this is a key point.

I have through my “skill and judgement” interpreted where to locate the recycling centres, as they locations don’t appear on either the mapping or the original website.

So the locations are not derived…

So you answer you question…

“When I create a Google MyMap, and I download the KML — who owns the copyright in that KML file? Is it me — or is it me with a derivative right from Google?”

As long as you have not traced an existing feature from the maps, and therefore you have created “new” content, you own the rights to that content and you are giving Google a license to use it.

It’s becoming clearer what you mean by using “skill and judgement” as they locations don’t appear on the mapping. It’s not copying anything from the map. It’s merely using the api to help position your information.

Could you also say the same if you were to use skill and judgement to locate them using the aerial imagery? It would indeed be likely that such recycling features are easily identifiable from such imagery?

Or, to clarify another use case, using Google’s aerial imagery (not the mapping) to create a series of tie points for the rectification of old maps, or home made aerial photos? With these cases - it’s essential to be able to use and identify features, but it also essential to use skill and judgement to be able to identify the corresponding locations.

Or, would this be a case of “traced an existing feature from the maps” ?

@ Tim,

I actually used a combination of the imagery which does show the location of some of the sites and local knowledge. Again as I have said before, because the recycling centres themselves don’t appear as features in any mapping, my map is not a derived work.

You use case sounds fine, you are not tracing a feature from the map, the operation you suggest is something you would do when brining in an image overlay into Google Earth for example.

@Chris.. You must understand the difference between intrepreting an image or placing a faeture based on your local knoweldge and tracing an exsiting feature that is already represented on the map. Tim question I think helps to clarify this, I can interpret the location of a recycling centre from the image and label its location, I can do this only because of my experience or additional local knowledge.

This is the key point to understand what is derived and what is not.

Public perception of how they think our industry conducts itself is at a low point.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3126910/35k-civil-service-job-that-no-one-understands.html

Ed:

Again, I would love to see comments on this issue from Google in a more authoritative location than your personal blog.

Specific use cases that I can’t understand based on your distinction:

I trace a footpath from satellite imagery. I know the footpath is there, because I’ve walked down it, but I don’t know if it has a name, just that it exists. (This is true, for example, for some foot paths in the hills of San Francisco, which I’ve walked down, but didn’t pay much attention to.) The local knowledge allows me to know this is a footpath, but the exact location of it is determined exclusively from the map.

One possible interpretation: Knowing that it is a footpath makes it not a derived work, because it required the local knowledge of walking down it to know what it was.

Another possible interpretation: The location of this foot path is traced exclusively from the map, and is therefore a derivative of the map.

Your statements above make it seem like you’re saying the former is true: You identified the locations of features exclusively from the map, using street/aerial imagery. These features are (in at least one case that I looked at) visible from the Aerial imagery, so the location is, at least possibly, derived. So, the local knowledge that you added is that it is a recycling center.

Another possible use case: I trace the same footpath, using the same imagery, but I *haven’t* walked down it before. However, I can clearly tell it’s a foot path because I see people walking down it.

In this case, the only difference is that I’m interpreting the image, instead of using a physical location as being the informative piece of context. I’m interpreting the size of the feature, the imagery of people walking down it, and making a judgement call about what it is. The points are exactly the same, and the end result is exactly the same. Is this one any more or less a derivative work?

Certainly, I can look at images in the Google Map above and see what are clearly bins and so on. The fact that it is a recycling center is a piece of information that I can determine from the image. If I were to make the same determination from the image, or from walking by and taking a snapshot, it sounds like you’re saying that the latter is not a derivative work, and the former is.

If this is true — the attribute being the important creative work — there is still a key point that isn’t addressed: The physical location of the thing you are labelling — it’s latitude/longitude coordinates — is exclusively determined by looking at the map in *either* case. (Assuming that I don’t have a GPS with me when I take the snapshot.) In either case, the geographic coordinates that exist have to be owned by the same person, as far as I can tell, no?

Another use case: I drive a route to the airport with a GPS in my car. At one point, I go under some trees, and the GPS signal cuts out. I trace out a line over the GPS track, and then lay that down in MapMaker. I then notice that at the point where the GPS cut out, there is a small curve in the road.

I’ve been down the road. I’ve seen the curve. I know it exists, but not exactly where it is, because I don’t have the geodata collected from an independent source. If I take my line, improve it (by dragging it around in MapMaker) and then export the data again — who owns the geodata? I couldn’t have built that line without Google Maps, but I wouldn’t have built the same line without GPS either.

I’m willing to admit that the combination of the attribute and geographic information creates a piece of information that perhaps couldn’t be garnered from the map alone. However, the geodata itself — the placement of the marker — is clearly not based on local knowledge. The same data could be created — in at least one place — by simply looking at the map and selecting a point which is visibly a recycling spot. I don’t understand that the extraction of this piece of geodata can be said to be the result of local knowledge, in either case. (Local knowledge might put a recycling center at, for example, the intersection of Park Lane and the A309, but not in the specific parking lot where it is actually placed.) With that in mind, I’m interested in where the line gets drawn.

To expand the question: If I take imagery and put a point on everything that looks like a recycling center, I might get a similar map to what you have here. (Assuming sufficiently detailed imagery of the area in question, and enough free time to actually inspect every pixel.) The pixels would likely end up in a very similar geographic pattern — and I don’t understand if using the same source map, and getting the same output data, by using a different entry pattern, would mean that the restrictions on the result are somehow different.

All semantics. Bottom line: OS claim everything is derived from their Godly Db in Soton. Accept it and pay your dues. All this talk is solving nothing. Rise up warriors of GI: lay waste to OSHQ. Free our data.

Christopher,

Please go back comment 1 and read them all again, if after the second reading what I am saying is still not clear I cannot help anymore, and my argument clearly needs recycling itself

As The Spatializer points out, the real target for this clarification could not care less anyway.

I agree with the Spatializer its not googles fault it is down to OS’s restrictive practices and licences. If google overcame this particular hurdle im sure OS would throw another obstacle in the way. I think the work google et al is doing is very worthwhile, and while it is not suitable for everything in Local Government I would love to make use of it for displaying some of our data.

Why can’t we simply have what we have paid for?
I am not interested in analogies with Broadband et al. The OS has been funded to do a range of things. The data they manage has been funded already. In the case of the broadband analogy, it is the equivalent of having your monthly direct debit taken, but then not having the web access.

The accessibility to our data is the issue, not necessarily the quality. US vs UK data. This is the 21st century. The OS needs to reflect that. We are in the IM age and that data should be swirling around for us to jump on and ride. Not locked down via SLA’s and naff purchase schemes. Little Britain.

Ed, you will never convince them. Warped and twisted wood is difficult to craft. It would be great to see a forum or workshop were geo-legal experts from overseas were given the opportunity to assess, discuss and critique this UK GeoInfo mess, in a manner that was objective and without agenda or bias. Then documented and presented to the Govt., the OS and the UK Geo community.

Hi Micky,

OK from your description the map is yours, you have not copied anything and it’s is the product of your interpretation of facts. You should not your sources as a matter of best practice and by using Google Map you give Google a license to reuse your map.

ed

Ed,

I having some difficulty following the thread, so I apologize if this has already been discussed, but I think that there are a number of issues that need to be analyzed in order to determine “ownership” in this instance. The first is the rights of the London borough in the location of the recycling centers. The second analsis is determining what rights Google is giving Ed with respect to its data and maps and what rights are being retained by Google. Similarly, the third issue is what rights does Ed give to Google in “his” data and what rights are being retained, (assuming that he has rights after the first analysis) The fourth is what rights does Ed (or Google) have in the new map in order to protect from improper use by third parties. Each of these involve the interplay of different legal issues, such as database law and copyright law.

So is tracing features from the imagery of Google maps (without looking at any of the map features) allowed for OSM? Obviously Yahoo allows it, is there anything so different with Google’s imagery?

It feels like the community should really challenge Google to step in and answer questions, versus sitting coyly behind the ambiguity of the situation. In the case of SEO and search logic, they have taken a much more involved role in “the conversation”.

To me, it feels disingenuous of Google to be quiet on this subject - which is obviously a lightening rod for the community driving the scaled success of mash-up and innovation behavior on top of their infrastructure.

Come on, Google, we know you’re watching, step in with a voice. There are things we know you can’t/won’t say, but to be this disconnected with the community creates nothing but FUD.

Stop acting like IBM and Microsoft. Grow a pair.

Ed,

I understand that you regret that this thread is not about recycling centers anymore, but largely about the legal issue of derivative work. However the fact that it is should indicate to you the extremely high relevance of this issue to the public.

If I read this thread, as well as other related threads on your blog, I guess that there is a persistent misundertanding about what it “tracing from Google Earth/Maps” and what is “a feature of the map”.

Let me try to clarify it: When ppl talk about “tracing from Google Earth/Maps” then usually they DO NOT refer to tracing Google’s own “Map/Hybrid” data overlay”, i.e. the scalable vector graphic that Google put over the satellite images. What they mean is creating THEIR OWN vector data using Google Map’s pure satellite images (only the images, NOT the data overlay) to find accurate geo-coordinates, then classify these self created waypoints as a street, a shoreline, or a recycling center (etc.) from other data sources outside Google Maps/Earth, e.g. their own knowledge of the area.

If I get you right, then in your opinion “a feature of Google’s map” is only what is in Google’s vector data overlay, but not what is just visible and identifiable (by own interpretation) from the satellite images!?!

So if I further understand you right, then you would say that a new, original vector data overlay, that has been traced from Google Earth/Map’s pure satellite images PLUS e.g. personal knowledge of the area, but MINUS Google’s own data overlay is not a derivative work!?!

That is good news. However - what Christopher Schmidt is trying to point out to you above is that - under many national laws and jurisdictions, maybe not the U.S., but most Europeans, it is very likely that the courts in fact will hold such a work as derivative from the satellite images.

If Google doesn’t mind such tracing of the satellite images to create a new set of vector data overlay, being free of (potential) restrictions from Googles copyright, then it would really help if Google clarifies this. However i am afraid a “I, Ed Parsons, personally don’t consider this derivative work” would not do it. It needs to be a “We, Google Inc., legally don’t consider this derivative work”.

Ed, here is another reason why this should be officially claryfied by Google Inc.:
For example the Openstreetmap-Project forbids it’s contributers to trace from Google Earth/Maps’s satellite images (unless Google would permit it), because Openstreetmap does respect Google, their Terms of Use and honors their IP.
However now there is at least one other project which recently started to do something similar to Openstreetmap, but tracing it completely from Google Map’s satellite images. As far it is publicly known, they do so without permission of Google; and by the way, unlike Openstreetmap, this project is not under an open lincense, but a properitary one. (I don’t want to mention the name, I guess you know which project I mean).
So far Google seems to tolerate it. But this bears a uncomely signal in it:
Those who respect Google’s (potential) IP will be ‘punished’, those who ignore it will be ‘rewarded’ (…by factually having a better tool, i.e. Googles satellite images).
I think Google Inc. should not have an interest in sending out such a signal.
Therefore I appeal to you - and assume that I can speak for many others - to push the legal management of Google to make an official legal statement, that such new geodata that has been created by the help of tracing from Google Map’s pure satellite images (but NOT from Google Maps’s own “Map/Hybrid” data overlay, of course!) is considered an original work of it’s creator, any potential IP (i.e. derivative work copyright) being waived, respectively licensed to the creator. (preferably limit this statement to work that is subsequently licensed under an open license, such as GPL, CC-SA, Open Data Commons Database Licence, and the like)

I hope this post makes it a little bit more clear where we all are comming from.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year