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.

As this discussion has grown in scope, and to allow my colleagues back in the States to follow this important thread can I ask you continue posting comments at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Maps-API/browse_thread/thread/3b0bd5922c7115f0

I think the distinction is we are now required to give an explicit license (I maintain there was reasonable doubt before) to the content. We don’t give a license to a visitor - unless we choose to - they can view it but have limited permission to reuse it. (but it doesn’t stop them in reality)

In terms of the ‘geoweb’ being indexed by bots - which is basically just allowed by omission, unless you say no, then it can be indexed. But in theory search engines should still have to abide by copyright. With this licence - which has NO opt out - Google is demanding an actual licence to the data, and once its been granted there is no recorse to have it removed. Google could quite rightly say ‘but we have a licence to the data, a developer used it in a API mashup’

Don’t get me wrong I want to share the data in most cases - much of it even listed in sitemap files, but dont want to give it up in perpertuality. For the duration of the terms we are effectively granted a license to display data, but we dont get to keep it at the end of it.

Geograph which involved with even requires users to adopt a Creative Commons license to submission - about the only restriction is needs to attribute reuse. Now Google could happily reuse that, but the license laid down in the Terms is even more liberal than that - not even attribution is required.

It gets worse when the API developer is using data from others - they have probably have a certain license do something with the data, but we have no power (as required by the terms) to grant anyone else a license. Ok maybe it said that now we should get a license to do this, - but then with entities like the OS, that simply wont be possible (in the short term at least)

> I think you will find there is nothing unusual here.
Which why havn’t used some many of them. But I’ve jsut checked now, and non appear to require an actual irrevocable license to the data - it exists for the term of the use. But if the terms are not as explicit in demanding a licence, but the entity says it does then there is then grounds to refute

The syndication point is fair I was not impliying this was just about GMM , but I used it as an example of the type of syndication possible.

If you chose to publish information on the web implicitly you are sharing that information with whoever uses your site, of course you always have the ultimate recourse not to publish your map in the first place or use another service which ether has TOS you prefer or who may actually do the same thing thing but are not as explicit in their terms.

This really is not a land grab conspiracy by Google, I would take a look at some other TOS for other online services to compare with this, I think you wlll find there is nothing unusual here.

ed

11.1(c) doesn’t just say that Google Maps for Mobile will include Your Content; it says it can be syndicated to anyone who has a relationship with Google. I certainly don’t want my geographic information (for which companies are actually prepared to pay money) syndicated for nothing. Nor do I really want it to happen with 11.1(b) either.

It would be far more helpful if Google were to say that they will extract this data from information given to them (in a GGeoXml call, for example) than simply take it from a site using the API.

I find it interesting that introducing advertising on API maps was mooted at the very beginning, but it wasn’t present so developers said to themselves “We’ll deal with that when it happens” and carried on. But simply appropriating My Content because I happen to use Google’s API to display it isn’t in the same league at all; and had that been included the original TOS no-one would have taken up Google Maps. As it is, an enormous amount of effort has been invested in developing maps using the API, and Google are now suddenly saying “Thank you very much: we’ll have that data. Oh, you don’t like it? Throw away your investment and start from scratch with Virtual Earth.”

And that’s just me: that’s entirely without involving Ordnance Survey.

I do agree with Colin and Barry: some sort of engagement with developers prior to issuing new TOS would have been useful. As it is, Google just looks like Big Brother who can appropriate whatever takes its fancy.

From the TOS

“You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make Your Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals…”

This doesn’t specify any particular type of content, it just says ‘content’.

I don’t understand how google could take my content as displayed on maps and repurpose it for other media, considering they’d need to ‘borrow’ it from my servers & work on the files, then host my content themselves & give it away, wiping out my business in the process.

http://maps.panedia.com/?lat=51.499874&lng=-0.124197&z=14&mt=m

It seems to me that this requirement would really only apply to Mymaps where the user is putting the data/content into google in the first place?

I don’t believe Google is planning to ‘borrow’ all my virtual tour content and give it away, but the terms seem to say they can.

Thanks, Aaron Spence.
http://panedia.com

Hopefully common sense will soon prevail, and useful maps such as this will be allowed to remain (or at least something suitable will be made available to replace the Google Maps, perhaps OS OpenSpace??).

Well done to Google for creating such a useful API, that has really made a difference to how things are presented on the world wide web! Lets hope UK sites are allowed to use it in future.

Also it would be nice to get clarification from someone as to whether data derived from Google Maps, which in the UK are derived from TeleAtlas data, which in turn is derived from OS data, is considered derived from OS data or not. Several years ago OS Customer Services told me that tracing from Google/TeleAtlas maps did not create a derivative work, but the recent advisory note from OS suggests that this might in fact be an issue.

7. Makes it very clear the licence of to the API user is only for the duration of using the API. But 11. says the license the other way is perpetual.

Its true that most data is locally hosted, so Google never even sees the data, making the terms unenforcable. If the terms are only intended to cover data actully hosted (or processed - eg via GGeoXML) by Google, then the Terms NEED to say that.

I think your own definition (last paragraph) is the best one of all as it’s draws a clean line between web 1 and web 2 and is only a few words long!

They also offer SSL for free and 50,000 geocodings per day. As a developer I’m so torn between the two for many reasons. No wonder some sites offer the user a choice of which map to use for their mashup!

I still think both companies should offer further clarification on the T&Cs. It shouldn’t be up to our lawyers to decide what Google/MS lawyers meant when they wrote the T&Cs. A lot of people who build websites don’t even have lawyers.

Your last point is quite a crucial one! Shouldn’t this be made clear, from what I can see it isn’t stated anywhere (although I must confess I do not know or fully understand the full TOS… who really does except lawyers!)

What would be really useful though would be if Google actually made people aware when it changes its terms, after all they have our email address because we gave it when we signed up. Is it a persons fault if they unknowingly infringe on the TOS because it changed and they were not aware? As a user am I going to have to make it part of my daily routine to read through the TOS.

Whatever we may think of their actual terms at least OS actively engage their users, especially when terms change!