BTW just just found this. False names are NOT copyrightable IP.
Copying of copyright traps consisting of "false facts"
does not constitute infringement.
Nester's Map & Guide Corp.
v. Hagstrom Map Co.
, 796 F. Supp. 729, 733 (E.D.N.Y. 1992) ("To
treat `false' facts interspersed among actual facts and
represented as actual facts as fiction would mean that no one
could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of
reproducing a false fact and thereby violating a copyright.");
, § 13.03[C]. The traps here easily fit the "false
fact" mold. As noted above, the names of geographic features may
not be copyrighted; thus, fictitious names may not be
copyrighted. Similarly, the existence, or non-existence, of a
road is a non-copyrightable "fact."
from page 19 of This
court decision regarding maps.
So traps can apply to how existing streets are laid out (google splitting many roads that don't qualify for splitting under Waze's guidelines) but any information presented as factual is not protected by copyright if the information is false. So again the previous position put forward in this thread that mass copying of Gmaps, using scripts or direct overlay tools violates, occasionally referring to Google to verify a street name or layout even if the information included is a trap is not infringement on Waze's part, particularly as Waze imposes no direct supervision or control over the individual editors. Waze has made a good faith effort to provide adequate editing tools to eliminate the need to directly copy from Google, so how can it be found liable for the actions of non-employee, non-supervised user editors, based on a day of reading past case law including the linked case and other cases, based on extensive precedence and current case law severely limiting copyright protection of maps (as noted in my linked case) I see no liability for Waze. Though IANAL, I do enjoy reading legal code and case law.