@rory I must admit I never quite understood why we are not allowed to use those sources for mapping. The pictures themselves are copyrighted, but the facts that they reflect aren't.
Is there a clause somewhere in StreetView's T&Cs that prevents using it?
Adding results to injury, from https://www.google.com/intl/en/help/terms_maps/
it is prohibited to "use Google Maps/Google Earth to create or augment any other mapping-related dataset (including a mapping or navigation dataset, business listings database, mailing list, or telemarketing list) for use in a service that is a substitute for, or a substantially similar service to, Google Maps/Google Earth"
Now it's playtime for lawyers and legal implications.
Ok, so a licencing issue then.
As I read it, liability lies with the Google Maps user (the putative licencee). Also, it does not prohibit using street view, etc., for checking the map (at least not until Google pays an expensive lawyer to argue that by checking for congruence between the two sources, you are "augmenting" another mapping related dataset).
@61 @AkuAnakTimur As well as G's T&C, many in #OpenStreetMap (incl me) don't want #OSM to be in a legal gray area. We'd like OSM to be "whiter than white", where there is no doubt that we can't be sued.
Another argument is that "OSM should not be a forum to explore the grey areas of international copyright law". 😂
@61 @AkuAnakTimur Copyright can law vary a lot by country. In the USA "raw facts" are not copyrightable, since there must be some creativity. *But* in the UK, one can get copyright for "sweat of the brow" , i.e. when one expands significant effort to create a thing, even if there is no creativity. So a collection of raw facts (This was only rejected in the USA in 1991) *might* be copyrightable in UK!
And don't forget sui generis database rights, which OSM relies on too.
@carto_des_pubs Yes, and it's quite interesting. IME it's been a little finicky, so I haven't used it properly.
New approaches to editors are great.