Google street. Can I get pics removed ?

sjpkgp

I think that anyone who wants their image removed should be able to have it removed without any body questioning the whys and wherefores. I am glad the OP got what was needed. That said, I would be absolutely delighted had I been caught on camera or even my car. I even think I remember seeing one of these camera cars somewhere, but now cannot think where I was at the time but think it was London. My area has not been "done" yet - are they proposing to do other areas do you think. If so, I may hang around outside for a while, possibly in fancy dress :-))

isofa

darich wrote: »

Exactly right.
Otherwise every sports photograph in a stadium would require a model release signed by every identifiable person in the shot. Including the players. There is no definitive law that says th at photographing people in a public place is illegal and that means that Google are breaking no laws at all even if they do gain commercially from those images.

This is the case, because the small print on tickets / programmes or from the organiser either in small print / website T+Vs etc, all indicate you are happy to have your photo taken, and that you have no rights over the usage, nor claims. They often including specifics about TV and movie recording rights. Without these disclaimers, individuals could have a claim, or refuse the use of a photo in publication

darich wrote: »

Isofa claims that it's illegal to take images of the public and show them. That may well be the case but if the public are only a small percentage of the image then it the image is not of the public and the law doesn't apply.

Depends if you are talking about personal or public/sale use (Google is clearly for public use. Using an example I know about, all the quality libraries such as: Getty, Corbis and so on, specifically require a model release for any pictures with people, and a property release for many buildings.

The art of photographing people of course isn't illegal, however it's what is done with the images afterwards that can involve legality if permission isn't sought.

Ever year I work on a publication for a client, and often at the last minute the printing gets held up, because a release for a photo hasn't been granted, we have to pull the shot and replace it.

darich wrote: »

It's a nonsense to expect privacy when walking down a public road in full view of everyone. It would be completely different if the images were taken with a telephoto and the images showed people in their homes where it would be reasonable to expect privacy.

Totally agree, but I was opening points for discussion. There are copyright and legal issues, and people can prevent the publication of their image.

robbie4321_2

All faces and car plates are (should be) blurred to begin with.
If you are still not happy, they will remove image if requested.
There is a short video on google that explains all about privacy of street map.

What about bebo/facebook/you tube etc. There may be pictures of children on these sites unknown to parents which other friends have put on. Is this the same thing? How could we possibly monitor that?

In schools children have to have a consent form at the beginning of the year to allow possible photos and videos being taken in connection with school activities. tbh I have never known of anyone not giving consent to date.

old_codger1

patman99 wrote: »

The camera is mounted on top of a van, and can easily see over a 6 ft high fence.

The security implications are extremely worrying. Burgalaris Scumbagius already successfully uses Google Maps to plot their in/out route to evade the Police, now they can take a good look at your property to see if it is worth breaking-in.

In my town, there have been several burglaries where the crimes made-off along public footpaths and therefore never got caught.

Personnally, I will be requesting the complete removal of ALL images of my property from Google Maps & Streetview (may even get a discount on my insurance too).

I'm sorry but you're talking nonsense.

What are you telling us... that there were no burglaries in your area before a week ago when street view went 'live'?

Are you seriously saying that most burglars, (many of whom live locally to the places they rob), have been waiting for the picture of the outside of a house from the street to see if there's anything worth stealing?

Are you also saying that street view is the best method of finding routes through back-alleys and pathways? It's street view... not alley view!!!

This is all part of the hysteria dreamt up by the 'meeja' about the issue... people who have nothing better to do with their time than to whinge about things.

weegie.geek

basmic wrote: »

Maybe you should considering clothing your family more suitably, if you are so concerned what people might do when they see them.

Did it ever strike you, that you might be just a poor mother who dresses their children in a way that might only draw attention to them from p@ed0philes, or other strange people?

Or are you just dopey?

Calling someone a poor mother and dopey is out of order, there's no need for that.

She's maybe paranoid and worrying about nothing, but to call someone a poor mother because they're worried?

And clothing them more suitably? What clothing is more suitable for playing in a paddling pool than swimsuits?

The way I see it, there's plenty of questionable material out there. Internet pervs have many more places to go to get their kicks than trawling the streets of google maps on the off chance they can see a kid in a swimsuit, with their faces blurred out. The chances of going looking for something like that, and actually finding it, are incredibly slim.

Mum_of_3_3

basmic wrote: »

Maybe you should considering clothing your family more suitably, if you are so concerned what people might do when they see them.

Did it ever strike you, that you might be just a poor mother who dresses their children in a way that might only draw attention to them from p@ed0philes, or other strange people?

Or are you just dopey?

I know of a friend who's just come out of a very violent relationship & had to leave in the middle of the night with just what her & her kids were wearing that would be horrified if their faces appeared on Google Street Map when/if it does the place she's living in now.

Not saying that this is why the OP wants her faces blurred, but please just think before you call someone a lousy/stupid mother :mad: also what else apart from swimmers are kids meant to wear whilst playing in a paddling pool???

Although I do agree with all this !!!!! nonsense people are talking about. I mean of course !!!!!philes only sit at home looking up pictures of kids online don't they, they never go to the beach or theme parks or playparks or anything :rolleyes: The reason that kids being snatched from their homes or on their way back from school etc is in the papers is because it is an extremely rare occurance (not taking away from anyone this has happened to). And don't forget the (horrid) fact that most kids are abused people they know.

M_o_3

tweeter

It looks like they have cut a central column out of the photo of my house and stitched the two parts together again, so house looks oddly narrower with a window missing. :doh:

old_codger1

On a more positive, (and realistic, IMO), note, I've been able to show my mother and father the place in London they met and their first house, (the one I was actually conceived in as it happens... although that's probably a bit too much information I'm guessing ), which would have been completely impossible without street view as my fathers in his 80's and is registered disabled.

There might be a few problems, (the fella coming out of the perv-shop can't be best pleased ), but as long as thee's a way to get images removed or changed there's no real problem. Well not for those of us who live on planet earth, anyway. :eek:

I think it's an absolutely brilliant thing, the only problem being the Daily Mail reading, 'hang-em and flog-em' brigades reaction.

However, as others have suggested, if people are really worried:)...

~Chameleon~

weegie.geek wrote: »

Calling someone a poor mother and dopey is out of order, there's no need for that.

She's maybe paranoid and worrying about nothing, but to call someone a poor mother because they're worried?

And clothing them more suitably? What clothing is more suitable for playing in a paddling pool than swimsuits?

Well presumably she wasn't concerned about her children wearing swimming costumes in full public view at the time?

If the google camera car managed to capture an image of them then so could any other person walking down the street, including perverts and !!!!!philes!!! :rolleyes:

dmg24

isofa wrote: »

This is the case, because the small print on tickets / programmes or from the organiser either in small print / website T+Vs etc, all indicate you are happy to have your photo taken, and that you have no rights over the usage, nor claims. They often including specifics about TV and movie recording rights. Without these disclaimers, individuals could have a claim, or refuse the use of a photo in publication



Depends if you are talking about personal or public/sale use (Google is clearly for public use. Using an example I know about, all the quality libraries such as: Getty, Corbis and so on, specifically require a model release for any pictures with people, and a property release for many buildings.

The art of photographing people of course isn't illegal, however it's what is done with the images afterwards that can involve legality if permission isn't sought.

Ever year I work on a publication for a client, and often at the last minute the printing gets held up, because a release for a photo hasn't been granted, we have to pull the shot and replace it.



Totally agree, but I was opening points for discussion. There are copyright and legal issues, and people can prevent the publication of their image.

I assume that you can quote the relevant statute and/ or precedent to support your statements?