On 11/24/06, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In 99% of
cases, I doubt it the work done by Google would be enough to
obtain copyright protection. Most of the time it isn't even something
done by hand, it's something done by computer.
I think Google have done enough for it to count as a derived work.
It's not just a compilation of images, they are put together in a very
careful and precise way. As far as I know, it doesn't matter if
something is done by hand or by computer - it's still copyrightable.
Careful and precise are not the standards for copyright protection.
Creative is. In the case of an image which is completely from a
single public domain source, there just isn't anything creative being
done. You stitch together the tiles in a completely algorithmic
manner. If anyone holds the copyright on the resulting work, it would
be the person who chose what scene to picture (the user of the
software), not the person who wrote the software. That is also the
person who put the work in fixed form, another requirement for
copyright protection.
I say show me the creativity. I don't see it. I actually don't see
much creativity in any satellite photography, but when it comes to
creativity from Google in a typical Google Earth shot, I don't see any
at all.
This is all completely US-centric of an argument, of course. In many
jurisdictions creativity isn't even required for copyright protection.
Anthony