Google street. Can I get pics removed ?

robbie4321_2

I agree that in a situation like mumof3 a parent would not want their child to be seen at a specific address, absolutely.
As already said all faces of people in google street are blurred to start with, so that should not really be a probelm.
"Bad" people only need to visit their local school/park/sports centre etc etc if they want to find children.
We cannot live our whole lives paranoid about being watched....I hope!!

harryhound

If the new band of street view spotters get to the image first; they may copy it and you will then have your 5 seconds of fame in perpetuity?

Google itself has already removed some of these images, it would seem.

http://www.streetviewfun.com/top-100/uk/



The cities covered by Street View UK so far are: London, Edinburgh, Leeds, Bradford, Cambridge, Cardiff, Belfast, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Oxford, Sheffield, Nottingham, Derby, Bristol, Coventry, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Swansea, York, Newcastle, Dundee, Southampton, Norwich and S!!!!horpe.

darich

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

No there isn't. I've been to dozens of football grounds, several concerts and countless other "gatherings" and not one of the tickets says that i agree to have my picture taken. They may all say that i cannot take a photograph or video, but no mention of me being in one.

isofa wrote: »

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.

I agree that most, if not all, picture agencies, and companies who buy from them will require a model/property release. But that's when the model or property is the subject - not an incidental inclusion. I have images of street scenes on agencies and no permission from the dozens of people in the image. I've also sold an image to a calendar of the Golden Gate Bridge with no property release - through a proper agency.

isofa wrote: »

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.

Agreed. But in google's street view, there is no law governing images of the street. And since the images are of the street, Google are free to do what they like with the images, including commercial gain.

isofa wrote: »

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.

Once again, it's because the image is of the model. They're not an incidental/accidental inclusion.

isofa wrote: »

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

It's good to discuss these topics but in the case of street view there is little, if anything, anyone can force google to do unless the image shows someone in a compromising/embarassing location or unless it showed that the person appeared to endorse a product. In those cases the person has a claim. In every other case, they don't.

oranabana

sjpkgp wrote: »

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.

Looks like you in for a chance:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=46.149632,9.412365&spn=0,359.881039&z=13&layer=c&cbll=46.149758,9.412358&panoid=xZKdt4mM40WNDOgJx6XBgA&cbp=12,9.671005645249892,,2,8.035714285714286

patman99

As a photographer, the law (currently) about taking and using photographs in a public place states that 'So long as you are standing on public property (i.e. road, park etc), then you may take photographs of anything you so wish, and use them for whatever purpose you want to without requiring any members of the public captured within them to sign any release forms, Unless you request them to pose for you, in which case, a release form must be signed, and a copy given to each participant'

That is how googlge can drive along a (public) road photographing buildings and anything that gets in their way. Legally, they have no right to enter private roads to carry-on their activity without first seeking permission of the landowner.

Google doesn't actually have to blur any faces, it does it purely out of curtasy.

weegie.geek

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

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:

As I think has been mentioned (and as you'd know if you'd seen one of the cars) the cameras are something like 10 feet in the air. High enough to be able to photograph over any garden fences. The kids wouldn't have been in full public view to people walking down the street.

Marty_J

isofa wrote: »

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.

You're missing the point that Google aren't taking photos of people, they're taking photos of public places. They aren't stalking people and taking their photos.

It seems rather silly to suggest that every time you see a photo in publication of a public place, each and every one of the people in it has been tracked down and asked to sign a model release. That just doesn't happen.

The law says we all have a reason expectation to privacy, but expecting privacy when you're in public doesn't strike me as being particularly reasonable, or even very smart.

darich

Marty_J wrote: »

The law says we all have a reason expectation to privacy, but expecting privacy when you're in public doesn't strike me as being particularly reasonable, or even very smart.

or even very possible

harryhound

patman99 wrote: »

As a photographer, the law (currently) about taking and using photographs in a public place states that 'So long as you are standing on public property (i.e. road, park etc), then you may take photographs of anything you so wish, and use them for whatever purpose you want to without requiring any members of the public captured within them to sign any release forms, Unless you request them to pose for you, in which case, a release form must be signed, and a copy given to each participant'

That is how google can drive along a (public) road photographing buildings and anything that gets in their way. Legally, they have no right to enter private roads to carry-on their activity without first seeking permission of the landowner.

Google doesn't actually have to blur any faces, it does it purely out of curtasy.

I think you may mean "public right of way" - my late mother's road is a private road BUT a public right of way and Google has been along her road.
Personally I think there is too much privacy in this country; far too much of the "get of my land" attitude when one is actually on a public footpath.

Marty_J

harryhound wrote: »

Personally I think there is too much privacy in this country; far too much of the "get of my land" attitude when one is actually on a public footpath.

I stopped outside someone's house to fiddle with my iPod, and some old guy came out and told me to "go and do that outside my own door".

I naturally used some well known sign-language to communicate my thoughts to him, which I'm sure resulted in a flurry of letter writing to the Daily Mail about the local yobs and how young people need a spot of national service.