decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Terms of Use: A Real Difference Between Wolfram|Alpha and Google
Monday, May 18 2009 @ 09:15 PM EDT

Google and Wolfram|Alpha are providing utterly different services, and as you might expect, that means the terms of use are also utterly different.

Wolfram's Terms of Use are not at all what I would expect from a search engine, probably because that isn't exactly what Wolfram|Alpha is providing. It's a computational service, at least in some cases providing computational output from various sources of data that perhaps never existed until you asked your question. So, they claim copyright on the results and require attribution. That's fine with me, so long as the information provided really is uniquely theirs and not just the answer to what is meaning of life and everything, but it is different from what I'm used to from Google and other search engines, so it is counter-intuitive, something to be aware of before I include Wolfram|Alpha output in a presentation on Groklaw or in a book.

Here's the section on attribution and licensing in Wolfram|Alpha's Terms of Use:

Attribution and Licensing

As Wolfram|Alpha is an authoritative source of information, maintaining the integrity of its data and the computations we do with that data is vital to the success of our project. We generate information ourselves, and we also gather, compare, contrast, and confirm data from multiple external sources. Where we have used external sources of data we list the source or sources we relied on, but in most cases the assemblages of data you get from Wolfram|Alpha do not come directly from any one external source. In many cases the data you are shown never existed before in exactly that way until you asked for it, so its provenance traces back both to underlying data sources and to the algorithms and knowledge built into the Wolfram|Alpha computational system. As such, the results you get from Wolfram|Alpha are correctly attributed to Wolfram|Alpha itself.

If you make results from Wolfram|Alpha available to anyone else, or incorporate those results into your own documents or presentations, you must include attribution indicating that the results and/or the presentation of the results came from Wolfram|Alpha. Some Wolfram|Alpha results include copyright statements or attributions linking the results to us or to third-party data providers, and you may not remove or obscure those attributions or copyright statements. Whenever possible, such attribution should take the form of a link to Wolfram|Alpha, either to the front page of the website or, better yet, to the specific query that generated the results you used. (This is also the most useful form of attribution for your readers, and they will appreciate your using links whenever possible.)

A list of suggested citation styles and icons is available here.

Failure to properly attribute results from Wolfram|Alpha is not only a violation of these terms, but may also constitute academic plagiarism or a violation of copyright law. Attribution is something we expect you to give us in exchange for us having provided you with a high-quality free service.

The specific images, such as plots, typeset formulas, and tables, as well as the general page layouts, are all copyrighted by Wolfram|Alpha at the time Wolfram|Alpha generates them. A great deal of scholarship and innovation is included in the results generated and displayed by Wolfram|Alpha, including the presentations, collections, and juxtapositions of data, and the choices involved in formulating and composing mathematical results; these are also protected by copyright.

You may use any results, including copyrighted results, from Wolfram|Alpha for personal use and in academic or non-commercial publications, provided you comply with these terms.

If you want to use copyrighted results returned by Wolfram|Alpha in a commercial or for-profit publication we will usually be happy to grant you a low- or no-cost license to do so. To request a commercial-use license, go to this form and provide the input for which you want to use the corresponding output along with information concerning the nature of your proposed use. Your request will be reviewed and answered as quickly as practical.

Google, in contrast, has no Terms of Use on its main page. You have to dig to find it at all, but here it is, and basically it says you agree you won't violate any laws. You don't have to credit Google for your search results. Again, this isn't a criticism of Wolfram|Alpha, as they have every right to do whatever they wish. I'm highlighting it, though, because I just wouldn't have expected to have to provide attribution, being so used to Google. And I'm highlighting it, because you probably don't all read Terms of Use.

There are other restrictions too on Wolfram|Alpha, including a warning about some types of linking:

Linking to Wolfram|Alpha

We are happy for you to link to the Wolfram|Alpha website, including deep links to specific results. Our citation formats page provides suggested formats for linking to Wolfram|Alpha, and icons you may use for this purpose. However, if you are constructing a very large number of deep links, or any deep links that are created automatically in response to user input given on your site, you must take into account the restrictions enumerated in the section "Ways You May Use Our Free Service and Its Results." If you construct a website that induces others to use our service contrary to those terms, you are inducing them to violate our Terms of Use, and can be liable for those violations.

Woah. OK. Got it. So, please don't post anything from Wolfram on Groklaw, without carefully following their instructions. Thank you!

And the meaning of all this? No. Not 42. It means Wolfram|Alpha will never replace Google.


P.S. Wolfram|Alpha doesn't know about 42. Here's what you get if you ask it the meaning of life and everything: "Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input." If you ask Google, first result is Wikipedia's Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with a link to it.

Update: Wolfram knows 42, if you ask it the right way. If you ask ""What is the answer to everything?", you get 42.

Update 2: Groklaw member Cornishman points out something wonderful, WolframTones:

This uses cellular automata (a Stephen Wolfram forté) to generate quasi-music. I can pass an idle hour tweaking the parameters, browsing the variations and finally selecting something half-way pleasing to listen to. Nonetheless, Wolfram Research asserts copyright in the content.

  


Terms of Use: A Real Difference Between Wolfram|Alpha and Google | 204 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 09:19 PM EDT
The respondent provides the corrections to the article here.

Thank you.

---
"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Thread
Authored by: alisonken1 on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 09:20 PM EDT
Don't forget to change mode to HTML if posting clickies

---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com

[ Reply to This | # ]

[NP] News Picks discussions
Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 09:20 PM EDT
Thou shalt discuss News Picks here. Or not.

---
"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County

[ Reply to This | # ]

Terms of Use: A Real Difference Between Wolfram|Alpha and Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 09:34 PM EDT
That's interesting.

Anyone have pointers to the circumstances under which something generated by a
computer may be eligible for copyright by the creater/owner of the tool when the
creator/owner isn't the one using it?

The only thing that comes immeiately to mind for me is the special license note
on some GPL developer tools which spit out skeleton code with the
"blanks" filled in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wont use it.
Authored by: bsm2003 on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 09:50 PM EDT
I entered my hometown and it gave me 3 other states and didnot even think My
home town was where it is. Not worth my time to eve n think f using it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Terms of Use: A Real Difference Between Wolfram|Alpha and Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 10:20 PM EDT
They could make their ToS a lot more brief and to the point by just reducing it
to, "Don't bother using this service. We plan to go out of business RSN
anyway."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Someone ask it how to make Entropy decrease.
Authored by: Just_Bri_Thanks on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 11:09 PM EDT
http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

---
Bri. Just Bri. Thank you.
(With a long i sound.)
Without qualification, certification,
exception, or (hopefully) bias.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Terms of Use: A Real Difference Between Wolfram|Alpha and Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 11:25 PM EDT
I used "What is the answer to everything" and it comes back with 42,
with credit where it is due.

I don't mind their TOS. Though I think they will evolve over time and use.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Many differences between Wolfram|Alpha and Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 18 2009 @ 11:49 PM EDT

People and journalists have a reasonable idea of what to expect from Google. Very few journalists have taken the time to understand what Wolfram|Alpha is. As a result, they ask questions that Wolfram|Alpha cannot (yet/ever) handle, get useless answers and write a scathing review.

Here is an article from a journalist who did his homework.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Questions I tried...
Authored by: JimDiGriz on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 01:09 AM EDT
What Can You Say about Chocolate Covered Manhole Covers?

Feathers or Lead?

Schrodinger's cat vs Pavlov's dog which will win?

What is the The Crime and the Glory of Commander Suzdal?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The REAL real difference
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 02:07 AM EDT

There are way too many articles - like this one - comparing Wolfram|Alpha with Google.

Folks, they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SERVICES. They do not compete with each other. They are not comparable. Articles comparing Wolfram|Alpha with Google are about as appropriate as articles comparing bananas with frisbees.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Put this in Google:
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 03:03 AM EDT
Put the following in the search box and on the result page, take notice of the
text just below the search box:

Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything



Funny :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

_Source_ of info?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 03:23 AM EDT
Are they really "an authoritative SOURCE of information" ?

They might be an authoritative indexer and computer of information but surely
the source is not them?

That very first sentence sets the tone for what they plan to do with it I fear.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Wolfram|Alpha cool questions and the answerand Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 04:35 AM EDT
So I asked Wolfram|alpha a science question.

-- What is the ratio of mass between Neptune and Earth?

I got back, "Wolfram|Alpha isn't sure what to do with your
input." And a list of Related Inputs as subtopics.

I clicked under the "Astronomy" heading and found
that key properties can be compared if you use a normalized
syntax.

The recommended example:
(mass neptune) / (mass Mars)
Gives a result of 160, plus a details link gives the
specifics needed to find the result. Cool!

I guess, just like Google, we'll have to learn to build our
query using syntax W|A understands, just like we learned
Google search tricks and keywords.

[ Reply to This | # ]

"assemblages of data"
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 04:47 AM EDT
Can mere "assemblages of data" be copyrighted? I would not think so
but IANAL. I would think that only the exact layout of the data on their web
site could be claimed as their copyright.

A search for "England" throws up all sorts of data, GDP, highest
point, lowest point etc. none of which could they possibly have a claim on.

If they publish a number that turns out to be a new mathematical constant can
they hold copyright on it?

Their position is absurd.

[ Reply to This | # ]

El Reg Thinks Wolfram Alpha Is Pants
Authored by: OmniGeek on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 10:00 AM EDT
The Register (my favorite tech tabloid) has an interesting take on Wolfram Alpha: Wolfram Alpha - a new kind of Fail. The author clearly doesn't expect Wolfram Alpha to survive. Not knowing what, if any, business model the service is using, I wouldn't venture an opinion on that matter.

Among the criticisms, however, is that Wolfram Alpha draws significant (unattributed!) material from Wikipedia, some of it apparently presented verbatim. This raises troubling questions with regard to their Terms of Service. They appear to be claiming rights and imposing restrictions on Wikipedia-sourced material that Wikipedia doesn't do.

I would expect that Wolfram Alpha will find they must relax their terms on at least some of the material presented, or else find themselves in a bit of trouble.

---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Terms of Use: A Real Difference Between Wolfram|Alpha and Google
Authored by: TemporalBeing on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 12:45 PM EDT
Well Google's model is "Don't be evil" after all...

I wonder if Wolfram|Alpha is trying to be the Angel's Wolfram & Hart of searches...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not the first time something like this has come up with Wolfram
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 01:00 PM EDT
I remember reading some similar license criticisms about his "New Kind of
Science", but a brief web search isn't turning up details. The concerns
were sufficiently significant that, if I were doing work in the field, I would
have strongly considered not reading the book.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There will be a lawsuit
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 01:16 PM EDT
I predict that there will be a lawsuit about whether the terms of service are
legally enforceable, within the next three years.

Disclaimer: I am not a prophet. Your mileage may vary. Contents may settle
during shipping.

MSS2

[ Reply to This | # ]

what the -- Terms of Use: A Real Difference Between Wolfram|Alpha and Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 02:00 PM EDT
If I submit the question, 'How much water is in Lake Michigan?" and I get
an answer of 172,000,000,000,000 cubic feet, it is protected by their copyright?
I thought you couldn't copyright a simple fact, only the expression.

(That is not the exact expression that was returned to me.)

Excuse my foreign language, but I doubt I'll be using it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

wrong results for song lyric
Authored by: ajrs on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 04:52 PM EDT
I read an article about this service earlier today and noticed that it doesn't
understand the semantics of folk songs. The correct answer to "Where have
all the flowers gone?" is "Girls have picked them every one".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Terms of Use: A Real Difference Between Wolfram|Alpha and Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 19 2009 @ 09:01 PM EDT
I have never posted here before but this is interesting (to me) so here goes.
It is interesting because of a neat legal question that I have come across very
rarely in my practice (yes, I am a lawyer). The issue has to do with the part
of the Wolfram Alpha terms of service that says:

"The specific images, such as plots, typeset formulas, and tables, as well
as the general page layouts, are all copyrighted by Wolfram|Alpha at the time
Wolfram|Alpha generates them."

It is obvious in concept that Wolfram Alpha could create output that included a
copyrighted work as a component. Any such component would remain copyrighted
and could be reused only as permitted by copyright law and the copyright owner.
However, what about brand new "plots, typeset formulas, and tables"
created by the Wolfram Alpha engine in response to a query? Even if all the
other prerequsites of copyright law are satisfied, there will be no protection
unless there is (quoting from Title 17, Section 102 of the U.S. copyright
statute) an "original work of authorship." That provision of the
copyright statute is due in part to the authorizing language in the Constitution
which allows "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So, is the output of the computer program underlying Wolfram Alpha, no matter
how advanced and sophisticated that program may be, a "work of
authorship"? Is that computer program an "Author"? Science
fiction writers have dealt with the question of when and if an automaton will be
given standing as a person by the courts but I think that time has not yet come.
Therefore, I concede that Wolfram Alpha can produce output that is subject to
copyright by quoting/excerpting from human authors, but I challenge whether any
of its purely synthetic output could be protected under U.S. copyright law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Contradictions from the TOS
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 20 2009 @ 06:30 AM EDT
"The Wolfram|Alpha service may be used only by a human being using a
conventional web browser to manually enter queries one at a time" vs
"We are happy for you to link to the Wolfram|Alpha website, including deep
links to specific results." Can't both be true, Wolfram guys.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Terms of Use: A Real Difference Between Wolfram|Alpha and Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 20 2009 @ 11:04 AM EDT
This is really an excellent article. I didn't realize the terms of use on
Wolfram
were so tight (not like I have any special concern about them owning
copyright to my results, though, considering it's their data).

However, it seems funny that they're so concerned about users attributing
results to them, when they're not as concerned about attributing where they
get -their- data. For example, the below is a quote from Ars Technica citing
their woes about Wolfram's lack of attribution.

“Data on my search result page indicated that, in 2003, global human activity
led to 27 Gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions. But it also indicated that, in
2000, the US produced 40 Gigatons during cement production alone. One of
these has got to be wrong, and Alpha gives you absolutely no way of finding
out which …” (as quoted at Newsy.com)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )