mapcat wrote:OK, then if you have access to other sources of street names, then why would you need Google's street names at all?!
Or were you implying that you could use multiple copyrighted sources and defend your actions if accused of stealing data by saying "I don't know if I copied your data or someone else's. I was using multiple sources, and only copied a few things from any one of them."
Yes. That is what I'm saying, if you are using copyrighted sources to establish public domain facts, then publishing those facts is not copyright infringement in the US.
mapcat wrote:You seem to be missing the point. If you create a map of Annapolis that calls the road in front of your house Benson Blvd, and you copyright it, you are not copyrighting something that is anyone's work but your own. And if another company creates a map that shows Benson Blvd there without asking for and receiving permission from you, then they are in violation of copyright. And if they use that map to make a profit, you will have every right to sue them and expect some sort of compensation.
I do not believe that this is true. If I create a map of Annapolis and someone else copies it, I can sue them (regardless of whether the copy is used to make a profit). However, if they create their own map that looks entirely different (except for the underlying public domain facts) and includes Benson Blvd, that's not likely copyright infringement. Copyright infringement in the US requires that to be a copy the other map has to be substantially similar to mine. The mere inclusion of Benson Blvd on an otherwise different (except for underlying public domain facts) is unlikely to rise to the required level of substantial similarity.
Yes, Easter eggs exist in data compilations. Let's take the hypothetical example above where someone else copies my map with the fictional Benson Blvd. If they independently create a map that looks just like mine, it is not copyright infringement. So when I try to sue them, their first defense is likely to be "Oh I never saw your map before in my life, so I couldn't have copied it." If I can't show that they actually saw my map, I can't prove copyright infringement. That's where the Easter egg comes in. If my fictional Benson Blvd is on their map, it proves that they actually did have access to my particular map. This showing of access to my map through the inclusion of Benson Blvd plus substantial similarity should be enough to prove copyright infringement. The use of Benson Blvd without substantial similarity would not be enough to prove copyright infringement as there would be no copy of my map.
Note that the Adams posting simply notes the existence of "copyright traps" or what I've been calling Easter eggs. Nowhere does he say that the mere inclusion of an Easter egg in another work makes that work a copy. If fact he cites to no cases where "copyright traps" have successfully been used in a copyright case. If there was such a case, he would have simply cited to it to show how effective Easter eggs are and there would have been no need for the rest of the discussion about whether they exist or not. Also, note that all the major map makers vigorously deny that they include Easter eggs in their products. This is because their reputation for accuracy is more valuable than the very dubious protection that inclusion of Easter eggs in their product provides. Intentional errors are simply not very useful tools in copyright cases.
There is a difference between copying a map and using online maps as references to learn public domain street names and locations. Copying is a requirement for copyright infringement.
EDIT: I just noticed that the Adams posting is dated 1991. Easter eggs likely made more sense prior to 1991. The US Supreme Court decision in Feist v. Rural Telephone that established that the sweat of the brow doctrine doesn't apply in US copyright law was decided in 1991.
