The problem is that gathering info from commercial sources on the web and then plugging that info into Waze may violate copyright and IP laws and may violate those websites terms of service.





I'm not drunk...I'm using Tapatalk.

AlanOfTheBerg wrote:Google purposely misnames/mislabels data in order to catch copying.

Copyright traps. Every mapping company does this. It's a very old practice.

On top of that, Google is often unintentionally wrong on a very large scale.

Just to make it clear - we've also changed the wording on the wiki - usage of any external sources, that are not provided through our tools (application or editor), in order to add data to the Waze maps, is prohibited and puts your work at risk of being reverted on its whole.

thanks

Have a nice long read through Google's Terms of use and reuse of their material. If you use that in Waze, it means the same copyrights needs to visible in all of Waze's own maps etc etc etc...

Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk 2

gettingthere wrote:DO NOT copy data from those sources (Google, Mapquest) in order to edit the Waze Map.

How about someone (Waze? experienced map editor? cartographer?) posting a list of OK TO USE sources and DO NOT USE sources to help the rest of us non-cartographers and non-lawyers so we can best contribute our local knowledge, backed up by legitimate sources?

The wiki has lists of resources, "implied" that they are the "DO USE" kind. Haven't seen any "DO NOT USE" instructions or resource list, outside of the forum. Expecting new map editors to search/review the whole forum is a bit of a stretch.

daknife wrote: 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.

This is a U.S. District Court decision, which wouldn't really apply broadly. Are there any Supreme Court rulings in what you've read?

Ah. I'd skipped some of the discussion. Thanks.

dmcconachie wrote: It's not the use of street names etc that is illegal, it's the use of Google to create a derived work!

This.

Because how do you know that the street name you see on their map is correct? They do purposely give a small number of streets the wrong name, making it easy for them to discover anyone using their data.

CBenson wrote:

mapcat wrote:Because how do you know that the street name you see on their map is correct? They do purposely give a small number of streets the wrong name, making it easy for them to discover anyone using their data.

You do research using multiple sources so that you are not copying any particular work.

OK, then if you have access to other sources of street names, then why would you need Google's street names at all?!

Or were you implying that you could use multiple copyrighted sources and defend your actions if accused of stealing data by saying "I don't know if I copied your data or someone else's. I was using multiple sources, and only copied a few things from any one of them."

You seem to be missing the point. If you create a map of Annapolis that calls the road in front of your house Benson Blvd, and you copyright it, you are not copyrighting something that is anyone's work but your own. And if another company creates a map that shows Benson Blvd there without asking for and receiving permission from you, then they are in violation of copyright. And if they use that map to make a profit, you will have every right to sue them and expect some sort of compensation.

Edit: See what Cecil Adams has to say: Do maps have "copyright traps" to permit detection of unauthorized copies?