What should be done about copyright violations like this?

Question

This looks like a crop from Google Maps (or another mapping service). There's no attribution, but it is almost certainly a copyright violation.

https://www.wikitree.com/photo.php/b/b8/Scriven-97-1.jpg

https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Scriven-97-1

What's the process on WikiTree for reporting copvios like this and then getting them removed?

Comments

I'd just call it fair use.

Answer 1

For reporting violations, the only information that I can find is this brief comment in the Help pages' FAQ on photos:

If you need to completely delete a photo immediately because it contains offensive or illegal content that violates our Terms of Service, e-mail info@wikitree.com. This should only be done in emergency situations, e.g. with inappropriate photos of children.

In the case of modern map data, I would recommend that WikiTree users use OpenStreetMap. It would also be prudent and kind to first make a replacement image whenever possible, prior to reporting the offending version or asking the original contributor to remove it. 

OpenStreetMap explicitly allows for reuse of their data, provided that appropriate copyright and licensing is included in the source citation. I've made an initial attempt at citation that's compliant. It's probably overkill, but here goes:

Map showing ...... is a screenshot of of the OpenStreetMap website. OpenStreetMap ® is open data, licensed under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). The cartography in OpenStreetMap ® map tiles, and our documentation, are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license (CC BY-SA). Further information is available from the OpenStreetMap copyright page.

In wiki markup this would be:

Map showing [https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_bike&route=51.8133%2C-2.1529%3B50.7401%2C-3.0663#map=8/51.324/-2.593 route from Cranham, Gloucestershire to Colyton, Devon] is a screenshot of of the OpenStreetMap website. OpenStreetMap [https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright#trademarks ®] is open data, licensed under the [https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Open Data Commons Open Database License] (ODbL) by the [https://osmfoundation.org/ OpenStreetMap Foundation] (OSMF). The cartography in OpenStreetMap ® map tiles, and our documentation, are licensed under the [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0] license (CC BY-SA). Further information is available from the OpenStreetMap [https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright copyright page].

To be on the safe side, and since I've cropped out the original one, it would be aptly cautious to include a copyright notice on the image itself. I've taken the liberty to upload the same map as an example on one of my free space profiles: https://www.wikitree.com/photo/png/JNM_G2G_Images-15

Comments

Per Julie Kelts post, Google is more than happy with people posting images from Google maps if you provide attribution, so . . .

---

Thanks, Chase, I did note that. However, OpenStreetMaps offers greater freedom in the user of their data, as one can suitably crop the image, which is prohibited by Google's terms:

Don’t remove, obscure, or alter any legal notices displayed in or along with our Services

Hence why the image is still in violation and would need to be replaced. OpenStreetMaps does not forbid cropping. 

I'm also uncertain whether Google's license is perpetual, like OpenStreetMaps' license. 

Answer 2

Why don't you contact the person who posted it and explain that all that is needed is to keep the Google logo in the image?  Then it's fine.

https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2019/09/09/citing-google-maps/

Answer 3

As RJ Horace notes, this is fair use. See https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html Since the use is noncommercial, is of an infinitesimal portion of the Google's mapping system, and does not deprive Google of income, it would almost certain be deemed fair use. So it is NOT a copyright violation.

As Julie Kelts notes, however, it does violate Google's terms of use unless you give them attribution.

But should you care if someone else is violating Google's terms of use in a minimal way by not giving them attribution? What they are doing is not illegal, just a minimal violation of a terms of use "contract" that nobody reads and most don't even know about. Personally, I would recommend not doing anything.

Comments

Why be a deliberate scofflaw if it is so easily avoided?

---

More of a scoff-terms-of-use. I'm not saying they shouldn't provide that attribution. I'm just saying that it seems too much like being annoying busybody to go around and tell people they should.

---

It might not appear that way but WikiTree is a commercial website so the use isn't non-commercial.

---

Wikitree is like facebook or youtube. It is a platform. I believe the "fair use" test applies to the person posting the material, not the platform.

---

Share I care? No, but WikiTree should. If the platform is being used for widespread violations, Google could one day insist that it is all removed. And suddenly we find the wiki has lots of holes everywhere!

---

Online platforms are increasingly being held liable for the content their users upload in some jurisdictions and that can include copyright infringements. In Australian copyright law, and I understand recent changes to European Union copyright law there is little protection for platforms.

Even if the 'fair use' test applied only to the person and not the platform, under current American copyright law, then there is the possibility that will change.