Given the subject matter, I’m going to insist, preemptively, that commenters limit themselves to talking about the maps themselves, rather than rant about Carter, Fox News, or left- or right-wing conspiracies. Remember that this is a blog about maps, not politics.

The scans at Gateway Pundit (linked in your post) are both from Dennis Ross’s books/work. Those are supposed to be the originals. Do you have a link to the scans in Jimmy Carter’s books?

Now I am no fan of Carter by any means, far from it, but I need to see proof on this one before casting judgement. From the interview Dennis Carter gave, he claims that he created the maps as part of the Camp David talks and that any recreation of them copyright infringment. You cannot copyright an idea. If the “Carter” maps are direct copies, it is copyright infringment and stealing. If on the other hand, the “Carter” maps are new maps that simply show the same country boundaries/shadings on their own independent outlines/maps of the land, that is completely okay.

After a little looking, I was able to find the maps.

The first of the Ross and Carter maps (side by side) are at http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzNkYjliNDIwNTdiZmE4YWE4NzNjNTE5NzE2NGQyYzA=

They do look identical.

From the link above, those are not the same map. If you draw a square and then draw a line through the center, and I draw a square and a line through the center, they may look the same, but I didn’t copy your “map”. If I take your drawing and say that it is mine, then I copied your map.

Anybody that says that they “look” the same and therefore is plagerism, doesn’t know maps.

Perhaps, we all need to either read up on our copyright law a little or look at the examples in detail.

Most maps are interpretations of real world features. When looking at the outline of a country, a map can either be a perfect outline of the country or it will be a generalization of the outline. These maps, given their scale, are obviously interpretations of the country/regions land masses.

The map on the right (the “Carter” map) is simply a zoomed in version of the one on the left. If you print them, take them to the copier to blow up the “Ross” map (or do this on your computer) so you are looking at them in the same size, you will be able to easily tell that each little turn, bay, outline, etc. is exactly the same. Under U.S. copyright law, this would be interpreted as a copy and would provide “Ross” with the ability to collect damages and/or stop the printing of the book.

You cannot copyright (or patent, but that is another story) facts. However, you can protect your interpretation of those facts from other people usage of them. I can legally read your book and write one on the same topic with the same conclusions, but I cannot include a copy of one of your chapters in my book without permission/licensing.

I can’t believe anybody with a serious interest in maps would claim that the two maps are identical. Actual land features cannot be changed. So, at a certain level, ALL maps of a piece of land will be the same; otherwise, it isn’t much of a “map”, is it?

Here are some notable differences:
1. “Jordan River”: exists in Ross map (RM); not in Carter map (CM).
2. Dotted feature to the right of Jericho: not in RM, exists in CM.
3. “Dead Sea”: not in RM, exists in CM.
4. Actual path of the Wall: not shown in RM, shown in CM (it’s the dark solid line).
5. Actual position of Hebron is _different_ in the two maps.
6. “Saffa” exists in CM, not in RM.

And the list could go on.

It is clear that the Carter Map is an interpretation of the position on the ground. Since Carter and Ross were on the same side, listening to the same ideas, it is obvious that their interpretations be similar.

Thank you Ajay! I would also like to know if either map was made with digital reference data. Which is what it looks like. If the features came from digital data (whatever the source), then of course they will look the same. But is the “Map” the same? I say no too.

A clear case of two different maps depicting the same basic information. The plagiarism charge is nonsense.

I believe Carter has a plausible explanation. While his eyes were cloudy, from crying over the plight of the Palestinians, the Israeli MOSSAD snuck in those maps!

Here’s the most relevant quote from Ross:

“Those maps are maps that I created. They didn’t exist. The fact is when we did the Clinton ideas, when we did Camp David, we presented ideas, percentages, criteria. After - after the fact, I created maps based on that and he’s used maps that look like they’ve been drawn from my book without attribution.”

If I understand him correctly, he says that he created the map (presumably the white boundaries) out of his own head. It does not reflect any real position on the ground, nor does it represent any official proposed positions on the ground.

To know if the white border positions are plaigarized we need to know how precise the ideas, percentages, etc discussed were. If for example there was a proposed list of specific towns and villages that were to be included, then perhaps the two are similar because there’s only one reasonable way to draw it. On the other hand, if the information was much more vague, like “let’s do x% of the land and y% of the population”, where there could be many ways of drawing it, then it seems much more likely that the map was copied.

Where did the original maps come from? I’m sure the author didn’t make them them up. they certainly fall into the realm of fact.

Isn’t it a copyright infringement to show the maps on the national review blog? As a photographer, if my photos where on their blog I’d be complaining.

How about some common courtesy? You always cite a source, whether it be a publication, photo, or in this case, a map. Would Mr. Carter assign his own name to a Picasso painting if he decided to use one as an illustration in his book? I guess so!

Do we know who Carter’s cartographer was? That information could really help.

I’m an academic librarian that works with maps quite a bit. Opinions about Carter & his book (which I haven’t read) aside, I think this is a big to do about nothing.

FYI…

It seems, perhaps, the data that is being fought over may not be a proprietary as some might claim????

NYTimes Map

Form over content? Seems redolant of the CBS/Dan Rather controversy, where attacks on documents’ material incarnations totally eclipsed rational debate on the veracity of the (alleged) information presented in them….

If Ross was an employee of the federal government and produced the maps as part of his duties as a federal government employee, then it might be the case that, in compliance with federal law, those maps belong to the federal government and are therefore in the public domain. Work-related products belonging to the federal government can be classified by the government, but they cannot be copyrighted by individuals. If this rule applies in this case (which I think it might), then it would matter little, in terms of the plagiarism charge, whether the maps are similar or not.