[pmwiki-users] GoogleMap question

Ben Wilson dausha at gmail.com
Thu Jun 22 11:55:56 CDT 2006


For the record, I'm in my last six months of law school, and I'm
spending those months focusing on Intellectual Property. I'll grant
you working towards a doctorate specializing in IP does not make me an
expert--but at least I have a better idea what I'm talking about.

My advice to anybody planning to incorporate Google map content on
their site is to contact an attorney to see if they may do so via
Intermap or IncludeSite, as only a lawyer can legally provide that
advice. This discussion here should only serve as background so that
when you speak with your attorney you have a better idea of questions
to ask and issues to address.

On 6/22/06, Chris Cox <ccox at airmail.net> wrote:

[snip]

> Does Google own the right to your internet content?  Do they own
> the right to photograph your house at will?  Do they own the right
> to cache everything on the internet?  If you agree that they OWN
> all of these things.. then you may have a very valid point.

This does not follow. Google owns its map interface. It has licensed
with commercial satellite imagery providers to make their imagery
available to its consumers via the map interface. Since Google owns
the interface, has licensed the imagery from the imagery's copyright
holder _and_ provided a license by which site administrators can
access said imagery, then Google _owns_ "all these things; therefore,
I have a valid point. If you're doing this professionally, do not
attempt to circumvent a major corporation's licensing structure
without consulting an attorney.

[snip]

> Google does not prevent you from viewing a map on their web site.
> That's all that includeSite and InterMap links will allow you do
> do.

This is a circular argument. Your major premise is flawed, as I
pointed out in my last email. (Major Premise) IAW its Terms of
Service, Google allows users to conduct searches on its web site, but
it does not allow site administrators to "mirror" searches. (Minor
Premise) IncludeSite is essentially a mirror of a separate site as it
includes a remote site's content on a local site. The output of a
query string is a search. (Conclusion) Therefore, IncludeSite, when
used to reflect the output of a query string targeted at Google, is
probably a violation of Google's Term of Service.

[snip]

> Photography is certainly an interesting thing.  I can't make
> a "copy" of your copyrighted work.. but under most laws I can
> make as many high resolution photographs of it that I want.

Again, your major premise ". . . under most laws I can . . ." is
flawed, and leads to circular reasoning.[5] U.S. Copyright law
prohibits derivations of a copyright owner's content without
permission from that copyright owner. Taking photographs (i.e.
facsimiles) of a copyrighted work is a derivation.[6] Therefore,
without an exception to the Copyright Law, taking photographs of a
work is a copyright violation.

An exception may exist in Fair Use, and I will not abuse the list with
a discussion of that. However, in the context of this conversation,
suffice it to say that there is likely no Fair Use upon which you may
premise an exception. Fair Use requires a personal use only, or
limited use by an academian. Publishing on a web site is not "personal
use only."

> Ridiculous.  Not saying Google doesn't have a leg to stand
> on.. but sort of funny that the cacher/copier of the
> Internet could sue someone for capturing content
> from them (ironic even).  AFAIK, Google has not secured
> the necessary permission from all copyright holders
> of web content.  AND.. realize that Google is using
> YOUR content (without permission) as an integral part
> of their revenue/business model.

Google has sought to remedy the likelihood of any copyright
infringement suits. If a copyright holder were to sue for
infringement, he typically first has to engage in pre-litigation
remedies. First, he has to contact the accused infringer and request
the infringer cease and desist. Then, if the accused refuses to
relent, then a suit may be brought.[7] This is to avoid undue
litigation and to put the infringer "on notice" of a potential suit
and the owner's willingness to defend his copyright.

Google has a policy by which you can remove your site content from its
searches.[1] Therefore, it provides copyright owners the means to
protect their own content without direct involvement with Google.
Therefore, Google has a solid defense to most potential allegations of
copyright infringement.

Under this structure, Google likely does not need to secure express
permission from all copyright holders. The fact that it provides a
means to remove offensive content, and that sites implicitly invite
indexing,[2] then Google has implied permission from all sites which
enjoy the benefits of being indexed with Google.

> Anwyay, if it bothers you.. by all means do not live in fear...
> do what your conscience tells you is safe with regards
> to Google.

I do not live in fear. In fact, my whole reason for seeking to be a
lawyer was so I would not have to live in fear. A little knowledge
creates fear where a depth of knowledge removes it. Before I started
law school I was uncertain as to what was and was not permissible, and
found conflicting advice from non-lawyers--so I decided to find out
for myself. The closest comparison I can make is like driving in a
major city without knowing what those multi-colored contraptions at
road intersections were--there is natural fear when driving through
one of those buggers not knowing if you're going against the flow of
traffic.[3] Law school, for me at least, is like going to driving
school--the sort of driving school where you learn how to do J-turns
and execute a PITT maneuver.

> IANAL.  But I do stand behind my belief of what can
> be allowed.

But, by saying here's a way to do it on the sly, you may be setting
others up for failure. This is why most states in the U.S. have laws
prohibiting lay practice of law. The only sort who can provide
competent legal advice is a licensed attorney. What I offer is a
warning that you may be in violation, and a recommendation that if you
need to proceed you contact an attorney.[4] However, I'm fairly
confident the Google Map API complies with Google's TOS as it is
explicitly provided by Google.

> If Google wants to sue me... they have
> my permission to do so... in fact, I'd love to see
> it!!

This issue is not whether Google would sue. The question is whether
Google could sue and prevail. When complying with its TOS, it is less
likely that Google can prevail. Again, it's bad for a business to be
exposed to unwarranted litigation.

I've said about all I need to on this. I promise not to abuse the list
with another similar explanation in the near future. :-)

-- 
Ben Wilson
"Democracy: two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

[1]: http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/topic.py?topic=8459&hl=en
[2]: Implication by not inserting a robots.txt that excludes spiders
from indexing the site.
[3]: This analogy breaks down because driving a bit generates
experience--but I'm focusing on the first time you try to drive
through such an intersection. Justice Holmes said "law is experience."
This analogy assumes the driver has only ever driven "on the farm,"
and never in a major city. My father-in-law is the source for this
analogy, as he drove on the farm for several years before he ever had
to drive in a city, and he failed his first driving test because of
his not obeying a traffic light. Granted, that was 50 years ago.
[4] This is especially true for those of you who work as consultants
for business clients. Don't put your client into a position where he
may be violating the Copyright Law--it's just bad for business.
[5] Yes, my footnotes are out of order. "Gentlemen prefer blonds. I
know this is true because a gentleman told me. I know he's a gentleman
because he prefers blonds."
[6] I just bought a four-volume set of Blackstone's Commentaries on
Amazon. These were originally written in 1765, but the set I bought
was a complete facsimile publised in 1979. Since the originals were in
the public domain (Blackstone died nearly 200 years before), this set
could be published without violating copyright.
[7] This is a simplification, but I'm only showing the relevant steps.




More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list