"11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in
Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a
perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive
licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly
perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit,
post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the
sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the
Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the
Additional Terms of those Services."
Following on from the withdrawl of the contentious clause from googles
chrome browser - e.g. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/macuser/news/222792/google-drops-claim-to-chro... should I be even more worried that its still in a range of their other
products - e.g. Picasa and the google maps api - or are they going to
remove it from those as well ?
In the UK the OS regulalry claim rights to derived data to the Nth
degree - even a GPS position that has been checked against a map of
theirs they consider derived - this could mean that they consider that
just about anyone in the UK adding data onto a google map would be in
breach of OS copyright.
Surely this isn't what google wants or means - if they can remove it
from Chrome - why can't they remove it from the maps TOU - hopefully
its just an oversight that will rapidly be rectified - otherwise I'll
have to look at Virtual Earth again.
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:27 PM, fred <fred_qwe...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> "11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in > Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. > By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a > perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive > licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly > perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, > post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the > sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the > Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the > Additional Terms of those Services."
Where do you find that in the Maps terms?
And I see that as content specfically submitted 'though' Google services. That would be for example via My Maps - and Google needs that licence to do it. Not so with a mashup made via the API. The data is not going to Google, the maker of the site could impose their own similar terms.
> Following on from the withdrawl of the contentious clause from googles > chrome browser - e.g. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/macuser/news/222792/google-drops-claim-to-chro... > should I be even more worried that its still in a range of their other > products - e.g. Picasa and the google maps api - or are they going to > remove it from those as well ?
> In the UK the OS regulalry claim rights to derived data to the Nth > degree - even a GPS position that has been checked against a map of > theirs they consider derived -
Its not quite as 'far reaching' as that. A point plotted on their map (particully with the OpenSpace API) they may consider derived information, not every point displayed.
> this could mean that they consider that > just about anyone in the UK adding data onto a google map would be in > breach of OS copyright.
> Surely this isn't what google wants or means - if they can remove it > from Chrome - why can't they remove it from the maps TOU - hopefully > its just an oversight that will rapidly be rectified - otherwise I'll > have to look at Virtual Earth again.
And its data that you "submit, post or display on or through, the
Services" - so that definitely includes anything you add on it - even
if its client side points and lines (though it could be harder for
google to get it)
<<Its not quite as 'far reaching' as that. A point plotted on their
map
(particully with the OpenSpace API) they may consider derived
information, not every point displayed.
The OS definitely conside any data that is even checked against their
maps is derived. The only totally clean way is to use GPS data that
is not plotted on and potentially checked against OS data.
This will have signifcant implications for many organisations in the
UK who are considering using google maps - the vast majority of data
in the UK is OS derived in some shape or form. I'm not suggesting the
OS stance is reasonable - but it is one thye have held for a long
time.
But there again I don't think googles terms are very reasonable either
for an organisation that generally likes to be considered the "good
guys" - I just hope that they can move as swiftly with thsi as they
did with Chrome
<<By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a
> perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive
> licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly
> perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit,>>
I think this is quite clear that it covers any data you display on
their maps no matter what technique you use to get it there
Given googles quick removel of the terms from their chrome licence I
was wondering why this had not happened elsewhere as well.
The OS definitley view any data that is even just checked against any
of their products to be at least partially derived. This gives
problems to most UK organisations if they want to use Google maps as
the vast majority of data in the UK has an element of OS derivation in
it (at least according to OS!)
I would hope that this can be swiftly sorted (ideally by google
adjusting the terms as they did with chrome)
P.S. Apologies if this appears twice - the first post seemed to go
missing !
On Oct 2, 8:40 pm, "Barry Hunter" <barrybhun...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:27 PM, fred <fred_qwe...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > "11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in
> > Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
> > By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a
> > perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive
> > licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly
> > perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit,
> > post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the
> > sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the
> > Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the
> > Additional Terms of those Services."
> Where do you find that in the Maps terms?
> And I see that as content specfically submitted 'though' Google
> services. That would be for example via My Maps - and Google needs
> that licence to do it. Not so with a mashup made via the API. The data
> is not going to Google, the maker of the site could impose their own
> similar terms.
> > Following on from the withdrawl of the contentious clause from googles
> > chrome browser - e.g.http://www.pcpro.co.uk/macuser/news/222792/google-drops-claim-to-chro...
> > should I be even more worried that its still in a range of their other
> > products - e.g. Picasa and the google maps api - or are they going to
> > remove it from those as well ?
> > In the UK the OS regulalry claim rights to derived data to the Nth
> > degree - even a GPS position that has been checked against a map of
> > theirs they consider derived -
> Its not quite as 'far reaching' as that. A point plotted on their map
> (particully with the OpenSpace API) they may consider derived
> information, not every point displayed.
> > this could mean that they consider that
> > just about anyone in the UK adding data onto a google map would be in
> > breach of OS copyright.
> > Surely this isn't what google wants or means - if they can remove it
> > from Chrome - why can't they remove it from the maps TOU - hopefully
> > its just an oversight that will rapidly be rectified - otherwise I'll
> > have to look at Virtual Earth again.
> And its data that you "submit, post or display on or through, the > Services" - so that definitely includes anything you add on it - even > if its client side points and lines (though it could be harder for > google to get it)
I know where they were, but couldnt track down that specific wording, but yes do see it now. Pretty sure it's also changed since I last read it. The main TOU does ackeledge that its possibl for specific ToUs revoke the rights, which I guess might need to happen with the Maps API tou.
> <<Its not quite as 'far reaching' as that. A point plotted on their > map > (particully with the OpenSpace API) they may consider derived > information, not every point displayed.
> The OS definitely conside any data that is even checked against their > maps is derived. The only totally clean way is to use GPS data that > is not plotted on and potentially checked against OS data.
Again this is not true. To clarify I work with a project (link in sig) that collects photos of the British Isles, these are submitted by users, and specifically plotted ON an OS map, these are photos are then released under a Creative Commons Licence. The OS have no claim over the derived positions in their own right.
The thorny issue is the OpenSpace API which again has a very restrictive ToU, and does claim rights over data though their service - but it doesnt apply universially to OS maps. http://openspace.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/openspace/faq.html
> This will have signifcant implications for many organisations in the > UK who are considering using google maps
If you want to be sure, there is always Google Maps API Premier which might have addional terms.
> - the vast majority of data > in the UK is OS derived in some shape or form. I'm not suggesting the > OS stance is reasonable - but it is one thye have held for a long > time.
by FUD ;)
> But there again I don't think googles terms are very reasonable either > for an organisation that generally likes to be considered the "good > guys" - I just hope that they can move as swiftly with thsi as they > did with Chrome
I know that OS have just about given up trying to claim copyright of
anything using the OS grid.
I do notice that your link is dated 2006 - and I fear that the OS are
reconsidering some of this - do you have any more recent references ?
I can see if you simply used the OS map to get a grid reference for a
set of random photos that might be OK - but if it was a collection of
church photos for example - which you used OS mapping to position each
photo - then they might well view that as a derived church layer. And
then if you displayed that on google maps that google would have
righst to the OS derived data
Its a very thorny area - and I just wish that all parties would sort
themselves out and clarify.
I don't really believe that google mean to restict this (I can't
really see how its in their interest) - but the OS are so paranoid
about derived data that they are likely to restrict it
I'd just like it clarified before I bother getting to grips with the
API
Anyone form google listening ?
On Oct 2, 10:28 pm, "Barry Hunter" <barrybhun...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> > And its data that you "submit, post or display on or through, the
> > Services" - so that definitely includes anything you add on it - even
> > if its client side points and lines (though it could be harder for
> > google to get it)
> I know where they were, but couldnt track down that specific wording,
> but yes do see it now. Pretty sure it's also changed since I last read
> it.
> The main TOU does ackeledge that its possibl for specific ToUs revoke
> the rights, which I guess might need to happen with the Maps API tou.
> > <<Its not quite as 'far reaching' as that. A point plotted on their
> > map
> > (particully with the OpenSpace API) they may consider derived
> > information, not every point displayed.
> > The OS definitely conside any data that is even checked against their
> > maps is derived. The only totally clean way is to use GPS data that
> > is not plotted on and potentially checked against OS data.
> Again this is not true. To clarify I work with a project (link in sig)
> that collects photos of the British Isles, these are submitted by
> users, and specifically plotted ON an OS map, these are photos are
> then released under a Creative Commons Licence. The OS have no claim
> over the derived positions in their own right.
> The thorny issue is the OpenSpace API which again has a very
> restrictive ToU, and does claim rights over data though their service
> - but it doesnt apply universially to OS maps.http://openspace.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/openspace/faq.html
> > This will have signifcant implications for many organisations in the
> > UK who are considering using google maps
> If you want to be sure, there is always Google Maps API Premier which
> might have addional terms.
> > - the vast majority of data
> > in the UK is OS derived in some shape or form. I'm not suggesting the
> > OS stance is reasonable - but it is one thye have held for a long
> > time.
> by FUD ;)
> > But there again I don't think googles terms are very reasonable either
> > for an organisation that generally likes to be considered the "good
> > guys" - I just hope that they can move as swiftly with thsi as they
> > did with Chrome
On Oct 2, 7:54 pm, fred <fred_qwe...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> The OS definitely conside any data that is even checked against their
> maps is derived. The only totally clean way is to use GPS data that
> is not plotted on and potentially checked against OS data.
We've had this confirmed.
Even looking at an OS map to find the location, and then clicking on a
separate Google map to get the coordinates is classed as derived data.
This pretty much rules out using Google Maps API to display almost any
data for anyone in the UK.
We are going to have to pull all (bar one) our Google Maps from our
websites.
One of our maps is using pure GPS data so that is okay.
OS also say this also applies to Microsoft & Yahoo Map APIs.
At least the thread title how has a clear cut answer: yes. Sure the
data is still 'ours', but Google have a clearcut licence to do what
they want with it.
It's somewhat annalogous to Creative Commons licences - except its
not clear if Google have to give attribution!
Need to discuss this more with clients, but for the moment have been
asked to disable some Maps :(
On Nov 6, 11:24 am, ProbablyMike <mike.be...@stroud.gov.uk> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 7:54 pm, fred <fred_qwe...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > The OS definitely conside anydatathat is even checked against their
> > maps is derived. The only totally clean way is to use GPSdatathat
> > is not plotted on and potentially checked against OSdata.
> We've had this confirmed.
> Even looking at an OSmapto find the location, and then clicking on a
> separateGooglemapto get the coordinates is classed as deriveddata.
> This pretty much rules out usingGoogleMaps API to display almost anydatafor anyone in the UK.
> We are going to have to pull all (bar one)ourGoogleMaps fromour
> websites.
> One ofourmaps is using pure GPSdataso that is okay.
> OS also say this also applies to Microsoft & YahooMapAPIs.
> At least the thread title how has a clear cut answer: yes. Sure the
> data is still 'ours', but Google have a clearcut licence to do what
> they want with it.
I'm not sure that I should just give my geographic data away like
that. It cost time and money to collate, and it's actually worth
something (there have been offers for it). While it *could* be ok for
Google to use it in their search results, I don't think it's on to
syndicate it.
The OS issue is related, but even while that is unresolved, Google can
appropriate and syndicate geographic data which is not OS-derived. And
*that* data will have cost far more to collate.
The answer is definitely Yes. Google are trying to steal our data.
> On Nov 13, 2:33 pm, "barryhunter [Maps API Guru]"
> <BarryBHun...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> At least the thread title how has a clear cut answer: yes. Sure the
>> data is still 'ours', but Google have a clearcut licence to do what
>> they want with it.
> I'm not sure that I should just give my geographic data away like
> that. It cost time and money to collate, and it's actually worth
> something (there have been offers for it). While it *could* be ok for
> Google to use it in their search results, I don't think it's on to
> syndicate it.
The syndicate cause is *probably* - a requirement to allow such things
as the ajax-search api which syndicates content to third party sites.
(but I thought that didnt give any rights to the owner of said site,
such a licence by Google is not required!)
The biggest issue and one that I hope can be clarified is under this
new Terms there is no opt out to sharing your data.
But even better would be a move to being able to control your data
licences of your own choosing (such as Creative Commons - or the
upcoming geodata licences) - then Google wouldnt need a catch all.
I prefered the old style Google, which indexed and syndicated what it
could get away with - rather than effectivly demanding a licence to do
so. I suppose its also an offshoot of Google being taking to court
over copyright infingement, so the desire to sneak in a few clauses
into ToUs can make it 'legal'
> The OS issue is related, but even while that is unresolved, Google can
> appropriate and syndicate geographic data which is not OS-derived. And
> *that* data will have cost far more to collate.
> The answer is definitely Yes. Google are trying to steal our data.
