Google Earth textures?

[GHD 21]

I've downloaded photographic scenery for Hong Kong (pvhk11.zip) and in the credits, the author states "All textures are supplied by Google Earth © free version and manipulated according to the user agreements."I understood that the Google Earth textures were copyright and for personal use only. Can anyone confirm this?George

[scott967 62]

The geographical information madeavailable for display using the Software is provided under anonexclusive, non-transferable license for printing and use only by you.Any animations, movies, prints or screen outputs generated with theSoftware are for your use only. You shall not copy, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, translate,modify or make derivative works of the Software, geographicalinformation, animations, movies, prints or screen outputs in whole or inpart. Further, you shall not rent, disclose, publish, sell, assign,lease, rent, sublicense, market, or transfer the Software, geographicinformation, animations, movies, prints or screen outputs or any partthereof or use it in any manner not expressly authorized by thisAgreement.Further, you do notreceive any, and Google and/or its licensors (if any) retain all,ownership rights in the geographic information displayed using theSoftware. The geographic information is copyrighted and may not becopied, even if modified or merged with other data or software. Your useand access of the geographical information may be subject to furtherlicense requirements or obligations.You will not delete or in any manner alter the copyright,trademark, or other proprietary rights notices of Google and itslicensors, if any, appearing on or in the Software, or animations,movies, screen outputs and prints generated by the Software as deliveredscott s..

[GHD 21]

Hmmm, that's what I thought. Perhaps it should be removed from the Avsim library.George

[GHD 21]

Ooops, I meant the Flightsim library.George

[Guest Bell206freak]

Why make such a big deal about it? No offense, but IMHO, it's not really worth stirring the pot. Granted, the "fine print" says you can't use it for your own personal use, but why make such a big deal about it?

[Guest christian]

Because the data supplied is actually owned by a company that paid big bucks to collect the data (aerial photography in this case). They own it and by hosting it on google earth are doing people a favour. If you rip google images it would be at least curteous to ask the supplier if it is ok to distribute them for free.There is of course a fine line between ripping images straight or further processing them so they are basically unrecognisable and distributing that for free. You may get away with claiming it as art, but using unmodified google images straight is just wrong. Remember that those companies are doing us a favour, they can easily pull the data if they feel they are being treated unfairly.Christian

[kjb 0]

Even if you purchase the images, getting permission to distribute them as scenery is almost impossible. I tried that route, purchasing the AirPhotoUSA images of northern Arizona through GlobeXplorer (who recently bought AirPhotoUSA). I asked both companies about distribution and neither responded. Not wanting to be a test case, I decided not to distribute. The same is true of i-cubed, whose images are used by Yahoo for their maps. They're not interested in even discussing it. It's too bad, because there is a lot of good photography done by both. I'm sticking to the public domain (USGS etc) stuff.

[Shaka 2]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate for a few minutes. I knew that this would happen one day (GE in scenery), and I've been thinking about it a bit.To start with, not everything in copyright law is black and white - what I'm getting at is that there is a "Fair use" clause under US copyright law. I'm not saying that it applies here, but I'm saying it _might_ apply here. Just because Google says something in their documentation doesn't necessarily make it so.I'm not going to paste a bunch of stuff here, but I'll refer you to the Wikipedia entry:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_useSo, I'm thinking that since the scenery is non-commercial, may stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, represents only a small part of the data available from Google Earth as a whole, and does not diminish the value of Google's work, maybe this would qualify as Fair Use. This would be applying the four-factor balancing test as described in the article.The classic (and better) example is the use of quotations from a copyrighted book for the purpose of a book review in a (copyrighted) newspaper.Ok, now I'll switch back over to the other side...I'm pretty sure that neither Avsim or Flightsim.com have the patience or the resources to go to court and defend something like this, and I imagine the simpler solution would be to remove the file.Anyway, read the article, and tell me what you think. If you don't think that Fair Use would apply, tell me why - educate me.- Martin

[scott967 62]

>I'm pretty sure that neither Avsim or Flightsim.com have the>patience or the resources to go to court and defend something>like this, and I imagine the simpler solution would be to>remove the file.This, I think is the main problem. I agree that there is probably over-assertion of copyright as against fair use. After all, copyright isn't really a right, it is a "power" granted Congress to secure for limited times, the exclusive right to writings, but only for the progress of useful arts. Unfortunately, media companies try to create the impression that almost any use, infringing or not, is "theft" or "piracy". IMHO an infringing use is just that -- an infringement, not "theft" not "piracy". I'm also not too big a fan of WIPO.But, I can see that folks who are just trying to create and maintain a flight sim community aren't really in a position to fight this kind of battle.scott s..

[Guest nick46]

It seems to me you are looking for a needle in haystack, and one that might boomerang and make a big hole in you.I would let it lie if I were you, and would not mention it again.I think by the way that Google would not mind, it is "fair use" as our friend says.

[Holger 0]

Hi all,um, nick46, I assume that your somewhat cryptic post isn't meant to sound as much of a threat as it does, correct?I'd say that this discussion is quite important and that our use of images hosted by Google or similar sites isn't a black and white issue. Unfortunately, it is generally not wise to make assumptions what is permissible or "fair use" and what isn't. In the case of Google Earth images the persons to ask for permission are not the Google managers, BTW, as they don't own the imagery and other data they host. The copyright is with the company or government department that originally generated the data in question. Google's statement as quoted above is primarily meant to recognise that entity's copyright. In the end it's up to the individual designer to decide what risk he/she is willing to take. However, I would agree with the point made that it is not fair towards the owners of the sites that we ask to host our files to put their good will at risk.Cheers, Holger

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi all.This is an interesting topic.Would it be an infringement of copyright to take a newspaper, fold it up, and sell some fish and chips at a fair, using the newspaper as a wrapper?I don't think so.My point is about usage. Were the images used to create a competing product ( another newspaper, or news source... freeware or commercial ), then we would have infringement. But using the paper as a food wrapper infringes on nothing in the news business.And I don't think the use of screenshots from Google Earth in a freeware flightsim scenery is an infringment. In this case, I think we are wrapping the fish and chips.And should the images be used as a tracing template for vector based scenery... or a background for designing landclass... then we are even further removed from the source of any infringement.A post came up in another forum about converting Ultimate Terrain vector scenery to CFS2 and distributing it as freeware. BAD idea. Now we are comparing "newspapers" to "newspapers". Taking someone else's scenery and making our own. Better to encourage the buying of Ultimate Terrain, and showing others how to convert it for their own use... or encouraging the UT people to make a CFS2 version available.In the past, I've taken Microsoft FS scenery and recycled it to Microsoft CFS2 scenery. By doing this, I bet that MS would not be offended, as the sims' rights are both owned by MS, and they themselves encourage scenery design and experimentation. They even have some CFS2 objects available in FS2002, as I recall. My actions did not impair the sale of either product, and may have actually contributed to further sales. As Holger states, this is still about risk. Infringement isn't a criminal activity, but a civil issue. This would be the realm of litigation, and Google has deep pockets. I remember some cases of Disney going to ridiculous extremes to "protect" their intellectual property. Nothing prevents Google from doing the same, if they desire. And AVSIM doesn't need that kind of problem.Dick

[GaryGB 10]

Well spoken, Dick. And practical too. A lot of what we have in FS now is because of experimentation and freeware development with the "help" of non-FS source data and imagery.With all due respect for our cherished FS hosting sites, some practical guidelines for what can/should be hosted vs likelihood of a for-profit business entity legally going after a free download entity and running the risk of a massive public PR and sales boycott backlash is still in order, and I think your post goes a long way towards exploration of a very timely and necessary topic!GaryGB

[mgh 89]

So pirating software is OK because:a) it's covered by "fair use":( the copyright owner can't/won't take any effective action?I must remember that argument the next time some complains in these forums that his product's been pirated. Or does that argument only apply to Google/Microsoft and other big companies?

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi mgh.I think you've totally missed the point. Fair use defines parameters to protect against pirating, but allows non-competetive usage.I don't think anyone has stated pirating is OK, except you.As far as ownership of software copyright goes, this is the point: An owner can choose not to exercise the right. I wouldn't if it were in my better interest not to exercise the right. That's just common sense.It makes sense for Levi Strauss to sue for J C Penny making jeans obviously copied from their pattern ( this really happened ). It doesn't make sense to sue Aunt Polly that hand-makes similar jeans for her many nephews. Nor does it make sense to sue a country singer that refers to "Levis" in a popular song.... that actually promotes their product. Levi Strauss could sue, but they have chosen not to do so. Are Aunt Polly or the counrty singer pirates? No. Is J C Penny a pirate? No.A pirate would sell copies of the jeans advertised as original Levis. And the buyer would either be duped into believing the profits go to Levi Strauss, or become an accomplice to the masquarade.In this regard, does using a Google image make someone a pirate? No. That would involve creating a website service masquarading as Google Maps, for the purpose of stealing their profit.What is involved is exactly copyright and fair use... not piracy. Piracy is a different issue that what is being discussed.Dick