Get a sneak peek at whats next for Permanent Hazards on our April 7th Office Hours!
Discussion for the unofficial, community-developed addons, extensions and scripts built for the Waze Map Editor.

The official index of these tools is the Community Plugins, Extensions and Tools wiki page.
Post by CBenson
SuperDave1426 wrote:
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.
I think you're seriously over-thinking it.
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.

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.
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?" ;)
See the case referenced here (although they did lose). The case however does reinforce point one above.
SuperDave1426 wrote:And even if such a thing were plausible, I seriously doubt that Google would sue its own company....
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.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
SuperDave1426 wrote:I call Straw Man. If you've heard a performance and decided to do one of your own, of a work like that, it doesn't infringe on anything because the song itself is public domain - only the particular performance by that particular orchestra is copyrighted. If what you were saying was right, nobody would ever be able to reproduce one of those performances because odds are that anyone who listens to that music is going to have heard the song, even if they don't know what orchestra performed it.
But if what you were saying was right then George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" wouldn't have been found to infringe "He's So Fine." What matters is not that there is an underlying public domain work, but rather that a subsequent recording does not copy the artistic elements that the previous recording added to the work.
SuperDave1426 wrote:(Heck, even the link you provided points out those facts. <grin> Every other country listed in that article also seems to indicate that they all more-or-less don't hold to it, to one degree or another.)
I am pretty sure that Waze doesn't want to be the test case to see where more ends and less begins in any of the countries that more-or-less don't hold to it.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
SuperDave1426 wrote:Then they should be really concerned, if that's the case. Didn't Waze do the initial basemap import from them? Or did they get it from some other (presumably public) source?
I've not heard that Waze got any basemap data from Google. In the US my understanding is that the basemap data is US Census TIGER data.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
qwaletee wrote:If Waze is found to have infringing data, they're screwed. If not, they aren't.

But it will be a sideshow to the only real question: is their data infringing or not infringing?
No. This is not how copyright works - at least in the US (and the US doesn't have much other protections for data). You have to have copying to have copyright infringement. So you can have the exact same data, but if you independently created it then it is not copyright infringement, while if it was copied from someone else then it can be copyright infringement. What matters is how the data is created, not just whether it turns out to be same as what someone else created. So if waze can say they discouraged things that would promote copying, that is a defense.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
AdreNalinGuY wrote:CBenson, this is clearly not because of copyright. The removal of the live map link doesn't make no sense. There is something else in between but we will never know what. They don't treat us respectfully for what we do for them, we don't have to know much. Do your job and shut up. At least this is how I feel.
Well as noted above you can use the internal livemap link. It seems to me its just easier to say no links. There likely is something else in between that we will never know. But it is not necessarily something reasoned. The lawyers say no links to external sources. Then by the time that edict makes its way down to a script author, the livemap link disappears. Not a reasoned response, but still because of copyright type issues. As Kentsmith notes, maybe it can be reinstated as it shouldn't be an issue.
AdreNalinGuY wrote:Here maps and OpenStreet, for double checking street names, address locations (Sometimes even GMaps has addresses in completely wrong locations, I had one case when the address was miles away on the other end of the blvd.) Here Maps and OpenStreet were pretty accurate. Sometimes there were new subdivisions with street names added in Here Maps and OpenStreet when Waze and GMaps didn't have it.
This is getting a lot closer to the copyright issues that seem to be making waze nervous.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by CBenson
I agree that we cannot copy other maps into Waze and we cannot copy the Waze map into other maps. So in actual real life practice, I completely agree with you. So the rest of this is likely over thinking this to the point of uselessness. But I'll go ahead and split these hairs anyway.
fernandoanguita wrote:Is my english understanding wrong ? or I stated copyright (That is for my understanding COPY-rights), I did never mentioned ownership.
Ownership means to hold as property. Copyright is an intellectual property right. Thus, copyright implies ownership. That is someone must own a copyright.
fernandoanguita wrote: Ownership is worthless for isolated segments that are perpetually licensed under royalty free with all the other "royalty"-capable features also for free, worldwide, perpetual and irrevocable to Waze.
Agreed.
fernandoanguita wrote:As you well stated clearly: When submitting Content to Waze, you grant irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, licenseable and transferable license to use, copy, distribute and others; From YOU to WAZE, not the other way around.
It actually says From You to Waze and the users of the Service. So as I am a user of the Service, it seems that when you submit content to Waze you grant me a license to use the content.
fernandoanguita wrote:It doesn´t say YOU as editor have ANY right to copy OTHER editor´s work in ANY other media, like Google maps or anything like. That includes, street segments, street names, places and all related information.
Again, as an editor I am a "user of the Service" (the Service "allows ... users to assemble and update maps"). So it seems that I receive a license to use, copy and distribute the content that you submit. This license is sub-licenseable and transferable. So it seems that I can sub-license or transfer my license to Google as I copy other editor's work into other media, like Google maps.

However, I as a user through the Terms of Use also agree that I "may not copy, print, save or otherwise use data from the Site or the Service's database." The terms of service also state:
[O]ther users may only use your Content for non-commercial purposes, unless Waze provides them with a prior written consent to use your Content for commercial purposes (for the purpose of which you authorize Waze to be your agent).
Thus, it seems to me that my copying other editor's work from Waze into other media, like Google maps, would not be a violation of copyright, but would be a violation of the Waze Terms of Service. This may be a distinction without a difference.
fernandoanguita wrote:Waze has that right, the only one that has the right, as a license (Waze can charge for this) to distribute your (and mine) work to others. Waze has perpetual, irrevocable and royalty free license from you to them to do this.
Waze and the users of the Service.
fernandoanguita wrote:In plain english:
1.- You cannot ask EVER Waze to pay you for your work on the maps.
Agreed. Waze is not going purchase a copyright from you for any content you provide because you provide a license to the content when you submit the content. As far as paying you for your work, I suspect Waze includes the following clause in the Terms of Use to say Waze doesn't have to pay for your work:
These Terms of Use and your use of the Service, including the submission of Content onto the Service, do not, and shall not be construed as creating any relationship, partnership, joint venture, employer-employee, agency, or franchisor-franchisee relationship in any way and of any kind between the parties hereto. Your use of the Service is intended for your enjoyment and benefit and the provision of the Service to you (subject to your compliance with these Terms) constitutes the sole and sufficient consideration that you are entitled to receive for any Content or other contributions you have made to the Waze Service, its contents, maps and any other data.
fernandoanguita wrote:2.- You have NOT ANY right to share other editor´s information with any other legal person than Waze itself. That includes segments and characteristics you take from streets and places (not made solely by you) out from WME to put in some other database. You can do this only if you made ALL the work, and had not ever received any update or help from ANY other editor.
Agreed. But not because Waze has the copyright over the donation work we have done. Sharing other editor's information may be prohibited by privacy laws, database protection laws and other clauses in the Waze terms of service. It may even be prohibited by the copyright Waze has in the map through its arrangement, manipulation and additions to the work we submit. Again, this may be a distinction without a difference.
fernandoanguita wrote:3.- That doesn´t mean Waze cannot charge others for the database. Waze is the only one entitled to share the entire database or parts of it.
Agreed.

Sorry to be picky. You are correct in practice. But hypertechicnally, waze does not have copyright in the content we submit.
CBenson
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 10330
Has thanked: 608 times
Been thanked: 1642 times
Send a message
Regional Coordinator: Mid-Atlantic, US
Verizon, Nexus 6, Android 6.0.1, Waze 4.7.0.902

Post by ciamagno
OyyoDams wrote:

Code: Select all

1.4.5.1
Update: References to external maps removed (asked by Waze staff)
To summarize everyone: It sucks... :(

Anyway, there is nothing we can do about the toolbox and the infamous links, but Oyyo, we love your script man and please keep working on it, we really, really, really appreciate all the free time you put on it.


Cheers
ciamagno
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 800
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 267 times
Send a message

Post by ciamagno
khaytsus wrote:
SuperDave1426 wrote:I agree completely with what HavanaDay said in an earlier posting - GMM is a PITA to work with on a good day (no, he didn't say that part - that's all me). Without the link button to take me where I'm at in Waze, when I get a "bad address" UR now, I'm just going to tell them that I'm sorry for their inconvenience and that the address location data is in Google Maps, and suggest to them that they use GMM themselves to try and suggest the change to Google, and then close the UR.

But I still find Toolbox useful, if not quite as handy in some regards.
Exactly. This. I'm not going to submit any more updates to Google Maps if this is the thanks we get (making it harder to edit). It's already a frustrating enough experience (GMM is an abortion and updates often go ignored or reverted) so since it's "important" we not be able to even link to Google, I won't submit any more updates to Google Maps.

EDIT: Just to clarify in case it's not clear, I'm not blaming Oyyo at all here.
I agree, i can't even start to describe how bad is the experience to edit on Google Map Maker, now that there is no easy link to go there, i will not bother. :P
ciamagno
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 800
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 267 times
Send a message

Post by ciamagno
ctpoole wrote:
I agree, i can't even start to describe how bad is the experience to edit on Google Map Maker, now that there is no easy link to go there, i will not bother.
I agree that my experience with Google Map Maker is pretty awful. The problem with not at least trying to make changes in Google is that many Waze users blame Waze for the really bad routing they sometime get because Google has a pin somewhere strange. When I tell them I have tried to move the pin in Google, they appreciate the effort and probably are happier with Waze.

I do the same, the problem is when you find a place that you can not move, that is the majority of them. You need to be the owner of the business to move it... this place needs to be claimed from someone from that company with a G+ account and then they need to put the pin in the correct position...

Many people dont know, dont care or has an obscure department or third party company who deals with it and it is not productive for us to find them and explain the pin and G+ procedures... too much hassle...

Usually i ask the wazer who reported the UR to talk to the "company" owner and ask them to correct the location on google, and i explain i did what i could on my end.
ciamagno
EmeritusChamps
EmeritusChamps
Posts: 800
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 267 times
Send a message
Last edited by ciamagno on Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.