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.
|
