Stand outside tomorrow morning

http://www.earthware.co.uk/blog/index.ph...ng-in-the-uk-2/

So did anyone stand outside waving at the sky on this bright April morning <grin>

I do that every morning ...

Here's an interesting semi-related piece of news-

Slashdot story: Angry Villagers Run Google Out of Town

They didn't want to be on google streetview.

I saw that UK Google street view news the other day. IMO, those villagers are justified in their actions and should just make sure their local council bans Google from photographing their neighborhoods. Any neighborhood should have that option even without a council declaration or by-law.

While the municipal property may be public, IMO, photographing it and putting all the path-like photos on a site as big and popular as Google Maps does bring up privacy concerns and shouldn't be protected under measures that guarantee or facilitate private parties from accessing that public property.

One common comment seen on the blogs reporting this story is that the UK is littered with CCTV and those citizens have no right to privacy because they've given it up. I don't buy that argument though. Nothing of what's going on with cameras in the UK amounts to the effect, impact and availability of what Google is publishing.

If you want to see what's on any of those streets currently, you have to go there in person. The citizens are fine with that, after all it's municipal/public property. However, Street View enables anyone to effectively "prowl" remotely from anywhere in the world. It a neat concept, but I don't think it, and Google, should be afforded any protections/rights to do this. They're going to profit from the results as well, their access to photograph should be considered a privilege.

If it weren't for inane lawyers I'd agree with that.

But the trouble with lawyers is, they insist that laws always be "one size fits all". And denying the right to photograph in public spaces is a non-starter in much of the free world (USA excepted, of course).

Cheers

I'm sorry, but public space is public space. If I'm allowed to go and look, I should be allowed to take photographs. And it makes no difference who "I" am.

Taking the photos isn't the issue, it's what's being done with them.

One's expectation of privacy is being challenged every day, but it's still a right in my opinion, whether or not any Tom Dick or Harry is allowed to photograph in and around the public places on your street.

My expectation of privacy is such that I can cope and deal with the normal and typical traffic around my neighborhood. My management of my property and how I choose to display in and outside my home are governed on that expectation and established "norm."

I do not expect that my window will be viewable to millions of people per day, whether or not millions of people choose to look on any given day. I do not expect that a photographic survey of my property, and potentially my family, will be viewable, indexed and cross-referenced for millions to use/see either. Google isn't displaying photos, they're creating hyper-detailed navigable maps, complete with address and positional information.

I'm big on photographer's rights and in fact maintain some reference material specific to a number of countries on that subject. I don't feel that Google's business model and platform fall into the same ballpark at all.

While they have the right to create, display and promote such a product, I feel that property owners and municipalities should have the right to refuse admittance. Note, I don't think they should have editorial control, which is different.

Google's product is far from what anyone familiar with photographer's rights would call "photography," regardless of the initial recording medium,

If I take a photograph, it is my property that I can do with as I wish.

There are many exceptions from where you may take a photo and further many expectations to what you may photograph and additionally what you may do with said photographs. The subject, laws, by-laws and property rights are far from black and white.

I agree with you in part. But I can also see others points of view.

Imagine Google took a hi-res picture of your house and your house only and posted it to their front page with out your permission. Now they don't need permission to do that, but does that make it right? Is that what the law is there to do?

I am not so sure the law is right. If you walk down my street I have the chance to capture an image of them doing that, but if you are on the internet you are free to scan a street of houses to see security weaknesses and target properties from a massive distance. On my street for example the images are so good you can clearly see who has alarms and who doesn't as both sides of all the houses are visible.

Now if Google StreetView didn't exist the person checking out my house stands a good chance of getting captured on my cctv system, legally I might add. Now that is more fair?

I think it's amazing and impressive technology, but I really don't see the point or use of it. Apart for spying on people of course.

Cheers

Cris.

If you have things you don't want people to see, don't put them in public view. Period. If you're expecting your security to depend on lack of inspection, you haven't much security at all. This is just the real world equivalent of security by obscurity.


I would have no problem with that. I don't honestly see why anyone would. But even if you did, blocking access to public roads and otherwise preventing people from doing perfectly legal things is just wrong. It's mob rule, which is far worse than anything you can come up with that could result from having a picture of your house on the internet.

Mmm.. how does one post a link to google street view addresses ?

Yup. I live at 10414 Shadowlawn Drive; Raleigh, NC. It's a townhouse: an end unit. It's on a corner and the front door actually faces the crossroad, Louson Place. My wife has a blue and white Mini Cooper. I have a dark silver Volvo S60R (not pictured).



Damn, that place is ugly. Well, at least it was cheap. Keeps the taxes pretty low.

I may be many things, but a hypocrite is not one of them.

Looks rather nice, actually.

Could use a few mature trees and things, perhaps.
Julf wouldn't be happy, though -- the garages only appear to have room for three regular sized vehicles. Or are the other two for a different unit?

I'm sure I'm not the first person who's thought about what it would be like to assemble a bunch of people to go down there and photograph the fsck out of that place.

Just try running me out of town if I'm not breaking any laws....

And I think this is the whole point. Are the laws as they stand written to take into account this new technology, and have we have a collective community had the chance to update them yet? Answer, no!

And posting a picture of our own house on a public forum is fully missing my point. That is your choice to do that, not Google's. The picture of our street are of clear enough quality to pre plan any attempt on illegal entry, spotting weak points in peoples security without ever needing to get close to the house before hand.

This is a difficult and complex issue, one that hasn't really had the opportunity to be debated in public before Google went ahead and did it.

I'll try putting my point another way, as you all seem to have missed it. If you came home and saw someone peering through your front window from the path, what would you do? I for one would go and enquire what they were doing and could I help them with something. Google has removed that opportunity for me to do that, weighting the intrusion of privacy.

Cheers

Cris.

One use I have found for it is giving out directions. Google maps with street level views of intersections are really handy so that people can see what landmarks are around an area they need to make a turn at.

I think that, in agreeing with and adding to your point, few people in the UK, unless it hits them in the face, realise how much laws designed for anti terrorism are being used to penalise photographers: Perfectly ordinary people, taking perfectly ordinary pictures are accosted routinely in the street and in shopping centre etc.. If, like me, you read railway magazines, officous behaviour by security staff to trainspotters with cameras/videos is currently the major topic.
And yet Google can get away with doing exactly the same thing without any restriction.
Again, I don't see the point of it, we have quite enough surveillance provided through official channels in this police state, without adding to it: Not that I'm going paranoid in my old age.

I was actually disappointed when I found out Google hadn't taken pictures of my house. If someone wants to break in they will. Having been burgled long before Google even had a mapping service I can't believe that anyone could use those photos to case someone's house.



All I can see of your house is that there's ADT alarm, high fences with bolted gates and that there are a number of security lights, you also have a fan in your upstairs window. Armed with that knowledge I doubt your house has made it onto anyone's 'must burgle' list.



If I saw someone peering into my living room window I think I would ask them what they were doing. However, if I saw someone taking a photo of my street I wouldn't do anything. In fact, my house appeared in a photo on an estate agent's website when they were trying to rent the property next door. Did I think it's an invasion of my privacy? No. Did I asked them to remove the picture? No.

We had a photographer at work a while ago taking photos of the office and staff for the GMG annual report. One of my engineers asked in front of the whole office to have any photos that included himself removed, this request was declined and he was branded a paranoid wierdo (in addition to various other things) by his work colleagues.

Assuming 'path' means 'sidewalk' (that is, the footpath that runs parallel to the road at the edge of the road), be idly curious and go about my business. If it means a walkway inside my lawn, then I'd ask.


Yeah, maybe, but do you think anyone would notice if a burglar drove by with a high-res camera inside the car taking photos? It would certainly be more useful to the burglar than virtually wandering though your town looking for potential victims. He already knows where the good neighborhoods to burgle are anyway.

This strikes me as trying to retain ownership of something you never owned in the first place.

But you can clearly see that some of my neighbours do not have that kind of security at all, proving my point that it could be used to spot weakness.

As for your friend in your office, I think he should have the right to have his picture excluded if he wants. As a photographer myself I would respect that request or a least give him a minute to step out of my way.

I think this raises another interesting point, Bitt you say it's not something you own in the first place, what do you mean? This guys owns his own face doesn't he? Surely he should have the right to protect that if he wishes. I think this is where the law is confusing and need updating. It's one thing to take a picture for your own records or to sell a house but a totally different thing to place it within a searchable database and give it some pretty high level attention in the media.

Cheers

Cris.

If I put something in public view, its image becomes public. This is why, for example, it's okay to photograph celebrities while they're out buying groceries, but not to use a telephoto lens from the top of the neighbor's fence to take a picture through the bathroom window of them in the shower.

I'm not going to make an argument about the guy who didn't want his picture taken. He wasn't in public, so it's not relevant to my argument. There are totally different issues involved.

I didn't really mean ownership in a legal manner; I meant it more in an abstract manner. The concept of the image of your house from the street is something that you have traditionally thought of as being owned by you, because nothing has really challenged that notion. But now that you're realizing that's not true, that it's free for anyone to use, because it's out in public, you want to retain your illusion that it was yours to begin with, when it never really was.

I think you're giving the average thief far too much credit. Like Bitt says, they know the affluent areas and they're much more likely to come round during the day while you're out to have a good look at your house than rely on some rather fuzzy distorted pictures that could've been taken over 12 months ago and for all they know, hideously out of date.

I think we're unlikely to see burglars using Google to put way-points in their iPhones of all the houses worth burgling.

I told him to go and take his lunch early if he had a problem with it.

But it wasn't my house that was for sale/rent, it was next door. The photo was taken of my house without my knowledge and the first I knew about it was when I went on their website to see how much the property was going for. It was in a searchable database (the estate agent's website) was advertised in the local newspapers.

As far as I can see, Google do not trespass on private property, nor do they drive up people's driveways. Until they start letting themselves into people's properties unannounced then launch houseview I can't see why people have a problem. I think the people in the village in the article obviously believe that with money comes unnecessary privilege.

I'm actually on streetview here. I was actually quite happy to have found myself, so happy in fact that if there was an option to un-fuzz my face I would do it.

What's the difference between your partner discovering you coming out of a sex shop in Soho on streetview and simply bumping into you in the street as it happens? Likewise if you're seen conducting an extra-marital affair then maybe you have more pressing personal issues that need dealing with first before blaming an internet service for supposedly invading your privacy despite the fact it's all taken place on public property.

If someone is using a picture of my property or of my likeness for commercial gain, then it is my right to be be compensated financially.

The same goes for celebrities and if I were one, I'd be collecting left right and center.

In whose fantasy world does it work like that? You think that the tabloids compensate celebrities for the money they make off the pictures they publish? Do you think they should have to?

Either way...I don't know of any places that actually work like that, so you wouldn't actually be collecting anything.

How about National Parks in the USA? Commercial use of photography from them requires special permission and fees. I doubt that's ever made it up to the Supreme Court yet, but..

-ml

Lots of places work like that. You can't publish pictures of many buildings in the US without written permission or licensing fees paid to the property owners. Same goes for quite a number of places in Canada, including the very popular CN Tower.

If the property appears as a small part within a larger photograph, it's usually exempt from such restrictions, such as a cityscape containing the property in question.

When you take a photo of a person you must obtain a model release if you wish to use that image commercially and not run the risk of getting sued for compensation or worse. Someone appearing in a crowd shot doesn't generally count, even if identifiable, the subject has to be the primary focus of the image/work.

You also have to make sure that no other laws are being broken when you're taking the photo. A lot of paparazzi shots are obtained while breaking all kinds of laws, even though the images themselves may not be illegal.

An image appearing in a tabloid under the guise of "news" likely skirts model release and compensation requirements because the images are used as part of an editorial. Though the tabloid is sold commercially, the images can be argued as not being used commercially themselves. It has happened however that celebrities have secured compensation for this type of image use, so it's not impossible. Unfortunately I can't remember who it was that did this recently (like within the past 5-10 years).

Anyway, there's a ton of research material, especially for US photographers. One of the best known sources is Bert P Krages: http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm

Note also that shots of "public figures" (incl. celebrities) are generally exempt from the signed-release requirements in many (most/all?) countries.

-ml