
Trying To Fill In The Gaps On Google Street View, Starting With Zimbabwe - neom
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/22/760572640/hes-trying-to-fill-in-the-gaps-on-google-street-view-starting-with-zimbabwe
======
stereo
If you'd like to do this and aren't comfortable giving your work away without
getting anything in return, you can try right now:

[https://mapillary.com](https://mapillary.com) which gives you free access to
everything you've uploaded. All images can be used to contribute to
OpenStreetMap.

[https://openstreetcam.org](https://openstreetcam.org) where all images are
under CC-By-SA so can be used by everyone.

In my experience, the OpenStreetCam app is a bit buggy. Mapillary is good.

------
Nemo_bis
> Mushkegowuk Council, in northern Ontario, paid him to document the network
> of ice roads

It's immoral, and I hope also illegal, to use public money to donate exclusive
use of a work to a private entity, let alone a for-profit.

Whoever is responsible for this should be told about OpenStreetMap and then
sued into oblivion if they don't make up by following the open data policy
[https://open.canada.ca/en/open-data-
principles](https://open.canada.ca/en/open-data-principles) .

~~~
hrktb
You are right, but I’d see a tipping point where the money is better used by
bringing better maps to services people actually use, effectively improving
their life.

It would be no different from straight paying Google so they map the streets
for instance.

It could be argued its a pragmatic choice to have the most impact on people’s
life.

~~~
marble-drink
Google can, and does, use open data in their products.

~~~
Nemo_bis
Indeed. Google Maps is also known to copy OSM without attribution (which is
illegal, but not yet proven so clearly that I would be on a lawsuit).

So spending money to add roads to Google Maps is just stupid, because if you
add them to OSM it's much faster and Google Maps will get them anyway.

~~~
rmc
> _Google Maps is also known to copy OSM without attribution (which is
> illegal, but not yet proven so clearly that I would be on a lawsuit)._

Not only would attribution be required, but OSM does (for some use cases) have
a share-alike clause. It could result in Google having to release their Google
Maps data for OSM to use. So I'd be _really_ surprised if they did that, and
I'd assume they'd be strict about making sure it's not imported.

If you have evidence, I'm sure the OSM community would be _very_ interested in
hearing it.

------
magicalist
They don't cover this in the article, it's just linked from it, but while it
is free labor for Google, all the imagery taken by the camera is owned by the
photographer and only what is uploaded to the street view app is licensed to
Google. They could also upload it to OpenStreetMap and Mapillary.

[https://www.google.com/intl/None/streetview/loan/terms/](https://www.google.com/intl/None/streetview/loan/terms/)
(see Minimum Imagery and Ownership and Use of Images)

~~~
Nemo_bis
Yes, and they should.

But let's quote the actual terms of use
([https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en#toc-
content](https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en#toc-content) ):

\----

When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our
Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use,
host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those
resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your
content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly
perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in
this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and
improving our Services, and to develop new ones.

\----

Considering the "limited purpose" is as vast as the services Google offers (is
there anything Google doesn't do?), and that there's infinite sublicensing
potential, this is not a narrow license. It's good that it's not exclusive _in
theory_ , but in practice Google is the only one able to use all of that
content.

~~~
magicalist
> _It 's good that it's not exclusive in theory_

What does that even mean? It's a non exclusive license. "In practice" you
_still_ own the pictures and can do whatever you want with them.

------
exabrial
I understand his desire, but Alphabet group has billions. He should not be
doing this for free.

~~~
ghego1
My exact thought. And shame on Alphabet for not providing any compensation to
someone so dedicated to their platform, even if willing to work for free.

------
mackrevinack
all of his images are now the property of google. if for some reason he or
anyone else wants to use these images at some point in the future for some
sort of project he would have to pay google a fee. that idea seems so bizarre
to me especially when there are a few different services that will do the same
thing but instead the images would be available to everyone.

how does someone plan out such a huge project like he did without looking
around to see what the alternatives are? maybe mapillary need to up their
marketing a notch

~~~
rolltiide
Hopeless to monetize and nobody will use the other services leading to just
doing it on the service with less egalitarian rights

And thats okay.

------
marble-drink
Amazing that someone would choose to work for a huge American corporation for
no fee instead of providing the data to anyone who wants it.

