The talk about signed releases for non-celebs made me take a step back and rethink. I'm very much opposed to corporate personhood, yet I've been unintentionally applying personhood rights to Google.

Although, I think I'm still of the opinion that if it's out in the open and doesn't depict people, it's public domain. But it is admittedly not so clear-cut now that I've removed Google's rights.

NSFW!

http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item349

I am not sure how it works in the US, but here in the UK if a paper prints something like that it has been through an editorial process and is deemed in the public's interest, in theory at least. This gives them a different set of rights to publish the pictures without a release. They can't just go posting pictures of people along with bogus stories without permission. Please correct me if I'm wrong, this is just my understanding.

When ever I take commercial pictures of a model I ask them to sign a model release so I can use the pictures, if no money has exchanged hands I just ask for verbal confirmation and then respect any requests at a later date. As my interests are not in the public's interest, they are for my gain.

Now look at why Google are doing StreetView, is it in the public interest? Or is it for commercial gain? Not very clear cut. From my point of view I don't think it's really in the public's interest at all, and it's all about Google getting people onto it's website and maintaining it's domination. I think StreetView pushes the current laws to a limit where we all need to think about our own privacy, after all the laws would have been written when such an idea didn't even exist, not even in concept.

Cheers

Cris.

I'm not even going to ask how you found yourself on there

Cheers

Cris.

Very cool!

So how long did it take for your image to show up there after you saw the google-eyes drive by?

Cheers

I was walking to work late one morning and the car drove past. This was some time last year, probably late summer, so quite a while ago. As soon as I read Manchester was on I went and had a look at the places where I saw it. It also drove past me on another occasion a day or so later but it looks like they didn't use those photos.

Speaking of... I *am* happy that my garage door was shut when the Google van went past...

I was behind the google-eyes for a few miles the other day, then got bored and decided to push the loud pedal. So I'm hoping to see if I appear somewhere between Oakbank and the Dalmahoy on the A71, ideally mid-boost

I received this email today from my nervous nelly homeowners association:


So you're clearly not the only people concerned about other people taking photos.

I still think it's ridiculous.

A lot of my day job is spent trying to help people understand and prioritise risks (and by people I include airlines, banks, oil companies etc) and my biggest enemy is panic and excitement caused by the media. In general, risks around someone taking photos are so negligible as to be irrelevant (sure, for some sites this sin't true, but they are pretty easy to define) - 99.99..whatever percent of thieves simply don't care enough to take photos. Even if you are rich and live in an upmarket area. Very few people would warrant that sort of effort.

These folks should try being sensible about real risks and spend money on improving driver training or educational standards, or looking after the environment or anything which may actually make a difference.

Blimming news channels and newspapers hyping everything! Gah!!!!

Someone claiming to be a former member of the burgling community posted on Slashdot to say that photography, whether Google's or one's own, of security problems visible from the street is useless for burglary purposes anyway, as what the burglar actually wants is a way to enter the property where they won't be visible from the street.

Peter

[quote=peter...former member of the burgling community .[/quote]

Just love that mental image...