First Google Maps Hack Takedown 325
An anonymous reader writes "Despite "users accelerating innovation" with Google Maps the 'hacks' are not immune from Google's legal team, who have taken down "Google Wallpapers for violating the terms of agreement.
From a quick skim through the terms it would seem that most sites using the Google Maps data are in violation. Are Chicago Crime and Google Sightseeing next to go?" It may be a shame to shut down Google Maps offshoots, but that has to be the nicest take-down note I've ever seen; it's polite, friendly and reasonable. Update: 06/08 21:22 GMT by T : Below, a few more of the current uses for Google Maps.
An anonymous reader submits "The AP is running a story about the multiple uses for Google Maps. Among the uses, Tracking sexual predators in Florida, Guiding travelers to the cheapest gas nationwide, Pinpointing $1,500 studio apartments for rent in Manhattan, and Finding crime in Chicago. It'll be interesting to see if Google allows these sites to remain online or not."
Nicest Shut down? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think there is anything wrong for a listed company to protect its interest, control its IPs and maximize its profit, but the fanboy twist is totally unnecessary.
Re:That is friendly, (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a new /. section called 'google'.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nicest Shut down? (Score:2, Insightful)
Though this is true to a point, there is something to be said about sending a notice to the site operator directly. Afaik, the *aa folks tend to harass upstream providers and do not contact site operators directly. Though, I am sure google would have done likewise if a favourable response was not fourthcoming.
Re:Nicest Shut down? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Noooooooooo! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a reason why this particular project got the takedown notice:
1. The satellite/air imagery is probably not owned by Google - they must have licensed it from AirphotoUSA or whoever else is the supplier.
2. The wallpaper site simply takes the images and stitches them together as a wallpaper - which means that are not simply incorporating a google product, but appropriating the images therein. Google's terms of use with their provider would necessisate the takedown.
Re:Google maps are inaccurate.....still like MapQu (Score:2, Insightful)
You wouldn't trust a beta service to do something as vital as navigation, now would you?
Re:Google Sightseeing? (Score:1, Insightful)
"I am not sure how Google Sightseeing could be in trouble, except for trademark violation. They do not seem to be using the maps, but rather the satellite photos, which cannot be copyrighted."
Why not? Because the photographs were taken remotely, in space, instead of using an SLR in some dude's hands? A photograph's a photograph, and certainly these particular photographs represent a sizeable investment for the photographer.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if they're being used by Google under a very specific license from the service that provided them.
Re:Nicest Shut down? (Score:3, Insightful)
Leech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Know the first thing I tell a new user who know bugger all about the Internet? www.google.com. In fact, I usually set it as their home page to make my life easier.
That translates directly into advertising revenue, and I do it because they have a spectacularly good search system, very cool add on tools and they let us play with them for free. They know *exactly* what they're doing and I'm fine with it.
Google's Merits (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see anyone arguing the merits of Google's action, so I will. From what I can see from the Google cache [66.102.7.104] of the web site, I see that following:
This gives Google good reason to shut down "Google Wallpapers" as it stands. I don't think it Google has any claims against the python script itself, just its users (which includes "Google Wallpapers").
This differs from "Google Sightseeing" and "Chicago Crime" (as far as I know, since I can't verify util the sites are back up), which only link to maps on Google, which means
Google moving to the dark side? (Score:2, Insightful)
This new event is something different. It doesn't matter how polite they are about it. They are flexing their muscles, and putting on my historian's hat, power always gets abused. They talk about empowering the little guys and doing good, but when push comes to shove, look who got shoved.
Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry Google, but there ain't no contract (Score:5, Insightful)
The maps are a copyrighted work. By default, you can't redistribute derivatives of that work unless the copyright holder explicitly grants permission.
The terms of service explain your rights to the content... they don't restrict them.
And yes... Fox can't dictate how you watch television. But try recording their lineup, stripping the commercials, and putting them on the Internet.
Oh spare me. (Score:5, Insightful)
old school Mafia MO (Score:2, Insightful)
So yeah, being polite doesn't mean that everything's cool.
Anyway...
more likely, since every other company sends harshly worded C&D letters, maybe Google just wants to be different.
Do Some Evil (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting wording (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If you must be evil... (Score:2, Insightful)
They really have no choice (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nicest Shut down? (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is in somewhat of a special position, because virtually 100% of their content comes from other websites! While issuing takedown notices, Google must remember it's only a matter of time until somebody challenges the google cache, or even of including textual context on the search results page.
For now, I'm sure google is happy to honor any requests from people who don't want to be in their results, and such requests are rare. But what we must avoid is a cultural shift on the Internet, where companies feel it's irresponsible to "give away" anything besides advertising. I *can* imagine images.google.com becoming useless from opt-outs, and I can imagine companies trying to control who can link into their websites. It's the culture of sharing I worry about more than the legalities.
It would be nice if google would allow use of the maps so long as there were an accompanying link and logo, or something.
Re:Or you could go with (gasp) Microsoft... (Score:3, Insightful)
For the most part, though, I prefer looking at the topo image anyway.
Actually, yes (Score:5, Insightful)
There's letter was much more legalese ridden, etc, ultimately, they had the decency to send me a warning notice before they sicked a pack of lawyers onto me. After it was clear to me that they were serious about it, I stopped.
If I was swapping songs and the RIAA sent me a letter saying, "hey could you please stop?", I probably would. Instead, they'd probably just sue me, and charge me a lot of money I don't have.
So yeah, there's something to be said for how you say things.
Re:I'm surprised Google let others leech like this (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is flush with IPO cash.
Bandwidth is cheap, but ideas are expensive.
By letting others "leech on their bandwidth" google fosters creativity. Creativity that has google at its foundation. If the result is even just a couple of good and new marketable uses of google's product, then the investment in bandwidth will have paid for itself a hundred-fold.
Think of it as a cooperative model of development and progress - kind of like academia, instead of the hording model that most Western business is so focused on.
Re:This is what I get: (Score:3, Insightful)
So this is how Google's 'No Evil' policy dies... (Score:2, Insightful)
Paging the fanboys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Grandparent hit it head on: enough fawning over Google.
Re:A more open content provider: USGS (links++) (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember that Google Maps doesn't just cover the US.
Re:This is what I get: (Score:2, Insightful)
> it's revenue by deep-linking to sites is sending takedown notices to people who
> deep-link their site.
It's really no more ironic than a cafe that makes money from selling food for consumption on the premises stopping you from eating food (bought elsewhere) on the premises.