Google Earth textures?

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi all.Concerning the use of Google Earth images, here's a quote from their website:Can I post images to the web? We're flattered to hear that you're further incorporating Google Earth into your online world. You can personally use an image from the application (for example on your website, on a blog or in a word document) as long as you preserve the copyrights and attributions including the Google logo attribution. However, you cannot sell these to others, provide them as part of a service, or use them in a commercial product such as a book or TV show without first getting a rights clearance from Google.If you require these commercial rights, please visit the 'contact us' link and submit your request through the 'Other problem' link. In your email, please provide details about why this information is needed and how it will be used. So as long as copyright, attributions, and the logo itself are present, and nothing is sold or used as part of a commercial product, the usage is approved by Google. Which I believe is exactly what the freeware author that inspired this post has done.And what Google approves is pretty much what Fair Usage would indicate.Dick

[mgh 89]

It is an infringement of copyright to use copyright material without the copyright owner's permission, whether or not the copyright owner choese to enforce his rights, subject to any fair dealing exemptions. Pirates use copyright material without the copyright owner's permission, which the the basis of their offence. Nowhere did I support piracy (I am opposed to it), rather I was pointing out that there is no difference in principle between a pirate and anyone else who uses copyright material without permission. Both are equally in breach of copyright law.Further, can someone tell me what is the definition of Fair Dealing in the USA, because based on comments here, it seems to be very wide ranging?In the UK (and by extension the EU) a "single copy of copyright material, for research for a non-commercial purpose, or for private study, may be made by an individual researcher or student under the provisions for fair dealing."http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/library/aboutthelibrary/regulations/copyright/legislationThe restriction to a single copy precludes uploading a further copy to a website.The Google conditions would seem to prevent its images being made available to others by third parties without a rights clearance."You can personally use an image from the application (for example on your website, on a blog or in a word document) as long as you preserve the copyrights and attributions including the Google logo attribution. However, you cannot sell these to others, provide them as part of a service, or use them in a commercial product such as a book or TV show without first getting a rights clearance from Google."

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

For all who are interested we have looked into this issue extensively and even if you want to pay the outrageous prices for the images outright, before even getting into distribution issues (freeware or payware), it is so confusing as to who actually owns the images it is not even funny. It would be impossible to even give the proper credits. Most of these companies have merged or whatever and use sub contractors to obtain the images or they have bought them thensleves from another source then re-sell them.Your best bet is to use the image as an underlay then paint a custom texture on top of it then jerk the image out of the final product.Fair use is a hard one to use because alot of the images have also come from actual aerial photogrpahy missions by private companies therefore some of them would be actually copyrighted legally.I think we are still a few years away and a few more satellite passes away before we can even get good enough images to use for ground textures in a manner that will show up good enough for FS use. I know of only 2 other developers that have nailed this down good enough to provide good ground work for FS and some other developers that have used good images and still can't get the ground just right. It's the hardest part of scenery creation and the longest. It still comes down to custom painting of textures to get it really right. scenerydesign.org could provide some insight for anyone interested.

[Shaka 2]

>It is an infringement of copyright to use copyright material>without the copyright owner's permission, whether or not the>copyright owner choese to enforce his rights, subject to any>fair dealing exemptions. ... except under the fair use exclusion.>Pirates use copyright material without the copyright owner's>permission, which the the basis of their offence. Nowhere did>I support piracy (I am opposed to it), rather I was pointing>out that there is no difference in principle between a pirate>and anyone else who uses copyright material without>permission. Both are equally in breach of copyright law.You were the one who first brought up the issue of piracy. This has nothing to do with that. Most of us would consider software piracy to be "creating a copy and selling it", or "creating a copy and giving it away". Software piracy is certainly a breach of copyright law (as you say), but that does not mean that all breaches of copyright law are incidents of piracy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_piracy>Further, can someone tell me what is the definition of Fair>Dealing in the USA, because based on comments here, it seems>to be very wide ranging?I think this was covered quite explicitly in the link I posted above.>In the UK (and by extension the EU) a "single copy of>copyright material, for research for a non-commercial purpose,>or for private study, may be made by an individual researcher>or student under the provisions for fair dealing."The laws of the UK and other countries may indeed be different than those of the USA. I only considered the US laws since Google (and most website hosts) are located in the USA, and thus would naturally be covered by those laws.>The Google conditions would seem to prevent its images being>made available to others by third parties without a rights>clearance.Again, it wouldn't matter what Google's conditions are if it is covered by Fair Use. I strongly recommend everyone read the link I had posted above, as it describes the criteria set out that allows the use of copyrighted materials under the Fair Use exclusion. I'm not suggesting that it is unrestricted or that it allows us to endlessly pirate software, as MGH (if that is his real name...) did.My points were:- it is not a commercial work (the scenery, that is),- it uses only a small portion of the copyrighted material, and- it does not diminish the value of Google's product in any way.It seemed to me that this would probably meet the criteria for Fair Use under the legislation. Here's the link again, for those who can't be bothered to scroll up a few pages.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use- Martin

[mgh 89]

"The practical effect of this law and the court decisions following it is that it is usually possible to quote from a copyrighted work in order to criticize or comment upon it, teach students about it, and possibly for other uses."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Does "possibly for other uses" cover uploading a number of images for downloading by others? That certainly wouldn't be covered by "criticize or comment upon it."Each individual image is copyright so it is fallacious to argue that a few images are only a small portion of the copyrighted material. On that basis it would be acceptable to use images from a photographic library by arguing that individual images are only a small part.It could diminish the value of Google's rights. Suppose, for example, it intended to licence use with Flight Simulator to Microsoft. The amount Microsoft would be prepared to pay would depend on the exlusivity of the rights.Finally, would you care to explain your remark "as MGH (if that is his real name...)"?

[Shaka 2]

>"The practical effect of this law and the court decisions>following it is that it is usually possible to quote from a>copyrighted work in order to criticize or comment upon it,>teach students about it, and possibly for other uses."The "practical effect" does not equate to "the only valid reason". Please read the entire article and note the numerous other examples. Also, just because you decide to narrowly define "Fair Use" doesn't mean that is the only acceptable definition. I think the 4-factored balancing test gives a better indication of where the work stands. I'm still not saying that the scenery is definitely covered this way, but I think it may be a posibility.>Does "possibly for other uses" cover uploading a number of>images for downloading by others? That certainly wouldn't be>covered by "criticize or comment upon it."Again, it doesn't have to be restricted to the "criticizing or comment" part of your definition. However, "uploading a number of images for downloading by others" might be covered by fair use, depending on the circumstances. You have to keep in mind that this isn't a black and white issue, like you seem to think. The Barbie example in the article is one example where the courts reversed themselves, and there isn't a single answer to every situation about whether the use of images (in your example) would be allowed or not. >Each individual image is copyright so it is fallacious to>argue that a few images are only a small portion of the>copyrighted material. On that basis it would be acceptable to>use images from a photographic library by arguing that>individual images are only a small part.I'm not saying it isn't copyrighted. I'm saying copyrighted material may be used sometimes if they meet the criteria for Fair Use.>It could diminish the value of Google's rights. Suppose, for>example, it intended to licence use with Flight Simulator to>Microsoft. The amount Microsoft would be prepared to pay would>depend on the exlusivity of the rights.You're right. It "could" mean a lot of things. I'm sure that if Google believed this then they might take an issue with it and then the onus would be upon the scenery author to prove otherwise. But it is not for you to decide this on Google's behalf, nor should we be afraid to use copyrighted material where it is apporpriate to do so just because it "could" diminish Google's rights in an otherwise hypothetical situation. Since I don't know of any agreement between MS and Google like you described, then Google hasn't lost anything. >Finally, would you care to explain your remark "as MGH (if>that is his real name...)"?I "could" but I won't, just because I choose not to. Maybe later.- Martin

[mgh 89]

">Finally, would you care to explain your remark "as MGH (if>that is his real name...)"?I "could" but I won't, just because I choose not to. Maybe later."Could you indeed?I can't be bothered with people who make personally offensive remarks and then won't even attempt to justify them.End of discussion.

[Shaka 2]

>">Finally, would you care to explain your remark "as MGH (if>>that is his real name...)"?>>I "could" but I won't, just because I choose not to. Maybe>later.">>Could you indeed?>>I can't be bothered with people who make personally offensive>remarks and then won't even attempt to justify them.>>End of discussion.Ok.- Martin

[Guest killerwatt]

Well, to all of you who have read this thread, you now know why lawyers are so plentiful (and rich):-)

[Guest christian]

Unfortunately the case isn't that easy.The data providers spend thousands of bucks to aquire the images they then sell on to recover costs. And we are at a turning point (at least I believe so) where fs add-on developers are willing to invest into aerial imagery to produce commercial add-ons. Back to the UT example, this scenery is based on commercial navigation data. So, would it be ok to rip the street data of navigation software and repackage it in FS, when one company paid for the same data to produce FS add-ons?To modify your newspaper example: would it be ok if the same fish & chips would be wrapped in a complete current issue of FSPilot? (mind you, not that I would want to read a copy smelling of fish :) )...Anyway, I don't want to raise the moral finger, just making people aware of what they are doing and draw their own conclusions of what they are comfortable with. I guess I'm seeing the whole issue through the eyes of someone who actually works in the geospatial business...Cheers,Christian

[rhumbaflappy 113]

Hi Christian.I agree about the UT example, which is why I stated it was a BAD idea.Dick

[greggerm 312]

Fair Use Test:1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;* If the scenery was created for the sole use of the scenery designer to learn how the scenery design process works, this would (PASS)! But by distributing it and adding the scenery to a flight sim file library, the freeware becomes a financial, reputational, or an otherwise commercial benefit to the site hosting it, so now it is a (FAIL).2. the nature of the copyrighted work;* The aerial imagery provided by Google are limited in their availability - they are also available for commercial use with a fee. They are not in the public domain, nor have any of the image clearinghouses recinded their intellictual property rights to them. The scenery author, like commercial scenery developers, all have the same opportunity to purchase the images (bank account balances aside). This is a (FAIL).3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;While the amount of Google imagery used in the freeware project is a miniscule amount of the entire Google Earth archive, the *ENTIRE* scenery project uses this imagery. If you take a closer look and consider the original copyrighted work to be "Hong Kong Aerial Images", then this scenery used *ALL* of it. There isn't any original imagery in the project to offset the copyrighted work. This overwhelming percentage gives us a (FAIL). 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.We all know that the flight simulation scenery market is not a huge one, but there are commercial entities who are developing photoreal scenery. These developers have to use commercial imagery, and therefore PAY for the rights to use them. Should any commercial developer decide AGAINST creating a Hong Kong photoreal package due to this free one being available, the commercial image provider can rightfully claim that the "fair use" clause has lessened the value of their product. This is probably the biggest (FAIL) of them all. +--------------------------------------------------------------------+It's all well and good if the author of the scenery used Google imagery for a personal project for educating him/herself on how to manipulate photoreal textures into MSFS scenery. I've done it myself with the USGS images! But when the scenery is distributed, you start moving contrary to the fair use clauses. The new work can be seen as a commercial benefit to the library distributing it, the new work uses comercially available imagery and not public domain material, the new work consists of nearly 100% copyrighted material, and the new work can impact the value of the commercial imagery by potentially nullifying commercial sales. I think this fails the fair use test. :)-Greg

[GHD 21]

Thanks Greg, that is exactly what I thought when I originally posted this topic.George

[scott967 62]

New, more restrictive EULA on Google Earth v4 beta:1. USE OF SOFTWARE The Software is made available to you for your personal, non-commercial use only. You may not use the Software or the geographical information made available for display using the Software, or any prints or screen outputs generated with the Software in any commercial or business environment or for any commercial or business purposes for yourself or any third parties.scott s..

[Guest R5D4]

>generated with the Software in any commercial or business>environment or for any commercial or business purposes for>yourself or any third parties."Commercial or business purposes" is NOT freeware scenery for fs2004.Google Earth images are watermarked. Flying over images full of google watermarks in a small area is no competition for decent payware with commercially acquired data that comes in 1GB+ packages.Only a court of law in your country can determine whether free-use rights do not apply. Not a forum poster on avsim. Not the copyright holder. Not FS payware outfits. Not you or I.