Not that long ago Google updated the Terms of Service on Google Maps API – I guess mainly in responce to issues brought up on the Mail group, and elsewhere. As a result of that edit there where many concerns raised (and more)- and a further edit was made. (note, only linked to some of the blogs etc – follow links to read more) This was over a week ago, but due to non online commitments haven’t really had a time to follow this up. You can read my early reaction here, which has been edited in to Mikes post.

11. Licenses from You to Google.

11.1 Content License. Google claims no ownership over Your Content, and You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Your Content. By submitting, posting or displaying Your Content in the Service, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute Your Content through the Service and as search results through Google Services. This license is solely for the purpose of enabling Google to operate the Service, to promote the Service (including through public presentations), and to index and serve such content as search results through Google Services. If you are unable or unwilling to provide such a license to Your Content, please see the FAQ for information on configuring your Maps API Implementation to opt out.

11.2 Brand Features License. You grant to Google a nontransferable, nonexclusive license during the Term to use Your Brand Features to advertise that you are using the Service.

11.3 Authority to Grant Licenses. You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licenses.

To be honest still unsure how I feel about this section, and finding it very hard to vocalise (well to put to pixels) the concerns. I certain its not compatible with a number of situations where the Maps would otherwise be ideal, but that I guess is real life – just need to move on an find something that is more suitable. But its still gauling to have invested so much in Google Maps API to have it all disappear in puff of legal smoke, I guess its now going to be“Once Burnt, Twice Shy” as they say.

How can I opt out of including my content in Google search results?
To remove your page or site from search results, follow the instructions provided in our webmaster help center. If we enable indexing of any content that is a part of your Maps API implementation, we will provide updated instructions to opt out of including that content in search results.

This seems to equate ‘indexing’ with ‘licence’.

Now I kinda understand why Google are doing this, they want to legalise the crawling they are doing – so they have a get out that the data has been licensed to them specifically.

So does that mean if we don’t agree to the licence – the data wont be crawled and indexed? But we do want content to be indexed – previously we’ve never agreed by allowing content to be crawled we giving a licence to that data.

… so with Geograph at least – I cant grant the licence – but I cant use the elusive ‘opt out’ (boils down to robots.txt I guess), as I do want the content to be indexed. So can Geograph use the Google Maps API or not? I still can’t see how it can – if it did it would be contravening the TOS of the API (cant confirm as per 11.3), and/or violating the Creative Commons licence (see section 4.a. of the legal code, “You may not sublicense the Work.” which is the most succinct expression of the issue).

Another silly issue in all of this, users displaying Geograph content on Google Maps website itself (eg via KML files) are basically agreeing to the same terms (by way of here and here [see section 11]). So the same issue displaying such content is not actually abiding by the terms and licence. And by providing links to Google Maps we inciting users to do this :p – but that is a step away from doing it wholesale on the website itself?

* sorry this has taken so long, truly sorry for the inconvenience. In retrospect maybe was a bit hasty – but couldnt allow the licence to data been entrusted with the be undermined.