It seems to be bubbling up as a hot topic lately. A lot of companies are tightening up and saying no to using Google Earth imagery in drawings and reports.
It is quite a inconvenience for us as drafters, to not have access to this useful capability. Especially with fantastic tools like PlexEarth out there. If you havent seen it check it out here, they offer a free trial.
I believe companies may be disadvantaging themselves for no reason. Google has a online guide to provide users and companies with some basic information on when and how to use content they make available. Its briefly discussed below.
The guide
The simple to follow “content restriction” guide allows users to determine if you can use imagery for any particular purpose. If you can use imagery for the selected purpose, it imposes several small requirements that must be met when doing so, such as attributing sources and restrictions on tiling etc.
The guide can be found here.
Interpretation of the Guide
My menu selections from the guide were…
“Google Earth… Print Distribution … Professional Use”
The first statement made under the section “Using Content for Professional Documents” is…
“You may use Google Maps and Google Earth for reports, presentations, proposals, and related items professional documents. We request you still retain attribution and follow the other guidelines.”
Clearly indicating that it is possible to use Google Imagery in our reports and presentations. However the real issue here is whether we are allowed to use imagery as a background for linework and contours etc.
Restriction on using imagery as an underlay
I’m assuming the restriction is based on the section entitled “Ensuring Print Reflects Online”. The section states…
”When using Maps/Earth Content in print, any images used must reflect how they would look on online. For example, you are not allowed to make any changes (e.g. delete, blur, etc.) to our products that would make them look genuinely different. This includes, but is not limited to, adding clouds or other natural elements, altered user-interfaces, and modification that do not appear in the actual product.
However, Google offers a Styled Maps API which allows you to edit the colors of individual map components as well as toggle visibility for each component (i.e. change water to purple and make roads invisible).”
I believe what is trying to be stated here is that the imagery, as an object, should not be modified to appear as if it is genuine. In other words, we should not be fudging the image to look like it has no trees or place fake cloud cover over a tributary.
“not allowed to make changes… that are genuinely different”.
Adding linework and contours on top of Google imagery is not modifying the imagery object. Linework is not only separate from the imagery electronically as an object, but clearly on plan it is not part of the imagery. In no way does it intend to distort the imagery or make it appear as if the imagery genuinely contained the linework.
Google allows a user to import all sorts of linework and shapes as KMZ to be placed on to their imagery. Why would it suddenly be restricted going the other way?
Restriction on tiling imagery using PlexScape
Those users of PlexScape out there that are “tiling” or “stitching” images together to make high resolution photos may find themselves in trouble. The guide has a very specific clause against it.
A solution
I believe we can continue to use Google imagery legally. Although we do need to make a few changes to ensure we comply with their content use guide.
I would like to discuss this further so we can potentially remove the restriction on Google imagery use. Please leave your comments.
