I think you're both wrong. If you use facts from a data complication in a non-sweat of the brow jurisdiction, then it doesn't matter if the facts are false or not as you can't protect what is presented as fact. So in the US you can reference Google for street names and if you happen to use one that that Google has wrong, it is not copyright infringement.SuperDave1426 wrote:I think you're seriously over-thinking it.PesachZ wrote:You are correct, however if their version of the street name, place name, etc. is slightly different than the public record, and you copy it into Waze, you have now copied protected data which is not in the public record. The only way to be certain what you are copying is public, is to look for it in the public record, not in a protected source.
On the other hand if you copy facts from a protected data compilation in a sweat of the brow jurisdiction, then even using the facts that appear in the public record can be an infringement if you obtain them from the protected compilation.
See the case referenced here (although they did lose). The case however does reinforce point one above.SuperDave1426 wrote: When was the last time you heard of a copyright claim along the lines of, "Oh, we made a typo on that name and then you have it now with the same misspelling so it must have come from us and by the way the misspelled name is copyrighted by us so now we're going to sue you?"
This is likely not about what Google does with data it has gathered, but rather what Google is doing with data it has licensed from others. Thus if the license agreement prohibits Google from creating another database with the the data in a subsidiary, then some third party data provider may well still sue Google/Waze if Google/Waze is facilitating copying the data from Google maps to the Waze database.SuperDave1426 wrote:And even if such a thing were plausible, I seriously doubt that Google would sue its own company....
Re: [Script] WME Toolbox (>1.4.2.8)