4 ms·

Very interesting. That's exactly what I was arguing. I don't quite understand where the line is though. For instance, why isn't Google Map information public

by equark 15y ago

Very interesting. That's exactly what I was arguing. I don't quite understand where the line is though. For instance, why isn't Google Map information public domain? The locations of roads aren't copyrighted and Google's efforts to enter this information don't seem that different than compiling a phonebook.

nullc 15y ago
Probably you don't understand where the line is because no one else is quite sure either. Most of the underlying information on Google Maps is public domain—road locations and physical features of the terrain are all uncopyrightable facts. What they claim copyright to are the map visuals: the particular style of drawing the maps, and the photographs they took. (though perhaps even that is debatable, since the photography is a robotic process) You should be able to take the Google data and extract everything uncopyrightable from it to draw your own maps. (And if you're interested in public maps, you should see the OpenStreetMap project.) But say you want to include some of the other things on Google Maps--place markers for hotels and restaurants, for example. Any one of them is an uncopyrightable fact: that's where it is. But what if you choose to mark the same collection of the same sorts of things that Google has marked--are you infringing on their copyright in the selection? The more you can make an argument that there was some original thought in the selection the harder it is to tell. US law is pretty clear on plain facts being ineligible for copyright, even if it took work ("sweat of the brow") to compile them. But copyright in things like collections of data is much less clear.
- wisty 15y ago
  However, Google hasn't done much (any?) creative stuff by hand. It's all automated. The input data is just facts, and the process is automated, so where's the creativity? Are automated processes able to create copyright-able works? I've no idea.
rwmj 15y ago
It's being worked on ... http://www.openstreetmap.org/ http://www.openstreetmap.org/
kbutler 15y ago
The line is creative expression. Copyright restricts copying of original, creative expression. Copyright law does not restrict copying of facts or ideas. "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102 Thus, you can freely copy the facts (information) in google maps. Google may be able to claim copyright on map images it produces, but I'd expect courts would find that they are just a mechanical reproduction of factual information, limiting the copyright to just the presentation choices (colors, fonts, styling, etc.) From the same reference: "(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."

by equark 15y ago

nullc 15y ago

Probably you don't understand where the line is because no one else is quite sure either. Most of the underlying information on Google Maps is public domain—road locations and physical features of the terrain are all uncopyrightable facts. What they claim copyright to are the map visuals: the particular style of drawing the maps, and the photographs they took. (though perhaps even that is debatable, since the photography is a robotic process) You should be able to take the Google data and extract everything uncopyrightable from it to draw your own maps. (And if you're interested in public maps, you should see the OpenStreetMap project.) But say you want to include some of the other things on Google Maps--place markers for hotels and restaurants, for example. Any one of them is an uncopyrightable fact: that's where it is. But what if you choose to mark the same collection of the same sorts of things that Google has marked--are you infringing on their copyright in the selection? The more you can make an argument that there was some original thought in the selection the harder it is to tell. US law is pretty clear on plain facts being ineligible for copyright, even if it took work ("sweat of the brow") to compile them. But copyright in things like collections of data is much less clear.

wisty 15y ago
However, Google hasn't done much (any?) creative stuff by hand. It's all automated. The input data is just facts, and the process is automated, so where's the creativity? Are automated processes able to create copyright-able works? I've no idea.

rwmj 15y ago

It's being worked on ... http://www.openstreetmap.org/ http://www.openstreetmap.org/

kbutler 15y ago

The line is creative expression. Copyright restricts copying of original, creative expression. Copyright law does not restrict copying of facts or ideas. "(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102 http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102 Thus, you can freely copy the facts (information) in google maps. Google may be able to claim copyright on map images it produces, but I'd expect courts would find that they are just a mechanical reproduction of factual information, limiting the copyright to just the presentation choices (colors, fonts, styling, etc.) From the same reference: "(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."