Google street. Can I get pics removed ?

isofa

dmg24 wrote: »

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

Have a read of professional photography journals, or even better, this fortnight's MacUser magazine which covers these items in detail.

I'd also point you to read the T+Cs of companies such as: http://pro.corbis.com/ and http://www.gettyimages.co.uk to start with - i.e. you as a pro photo provider, not as a user of the images - which is very different indeed.

If a photo is taken on public property / public accessible, then building releases aren't needed - unless a logo forms the majority of the image, then it does.

Any buildings on private land are likely to require a building release. And as I work regularly with a famous country house set in private grounds, I know the details required. If one was videoing, they would also need a mechanical copyright agreement. (People often need these if they film their wedding in church too.)

isofa

darich wrote: »

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.

Fair enough if this isn't on your tickets - but on websites and tickets T+Cs of events I've attended, including Wimbledon which I go to every year, these exact T+Cs are listed, they specifically mention that if any images containing you are used in commercial purposes you fully agree to your image being used and can claim no recompense for this. I've also seen this quoted in areas of filming in the UK.

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

That's a fair point, and I agree, that it's just circumstance and they aren't the main interest of the photo.

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.

I don't disagree, and as I've said in my first post, I have no issue with it at all. But there are points which aren't clear cut. It is a shame that paranoia drives people to worry so much in life, especially about children, who are far more likely to be the victim of abuse in the hands of a family by that of a stranger. Very sad that parents can't video children in school plays and the like, and any man seen with a camera is treated by suspicion by parents - Daily Mail culture indeed.

harryhound

Marty_J wrote: »

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.

As some old guy I agree with you; though I think you might have been more subtle.

I usually try and produce a conversation like this:
Oh I'm so sorry, I did not realise. So you are the land owner of the land we are standing on?
[In your case self evident nonsense]
I never realised this was private road; so you own that house there and the land to the crown of the road?
I'm having trouble with my xxxxxxx I'm lost........ I'm ...........
Can I have your permission to stop on your road, while I sort this out.? Or should I pull over to the other side of the road and ask them. No no its no trouble, I fully understand why someone like you feels the way you do [ie I pity you losing your marbles]....................

Of course you have to be a bit careful as it just might be a private road and he could send for the clampers. If you do come across a land owner, or better some puffed up idiot who thinks he is the owner's agent, then you have to change tack to:
I'm so sorry, I did not realise I was breaking a law..................
This must be one of those special exclusion zones - do you have someone who needs armed security living here?
You're trespassing.....................
Sorry so I've not got your landlord the Queen's permission, but what damage have I done?...............................

Obviously if the "old guy" starts treating you like a fellow human with rights to equality under the law, at any point, you change tack to empathy with what ever is his real problem.

I've had positively metaphysical discussions about Adam delving and Eve spinning as part of the conversation about who stole the Garden of Eden from the rest of us..

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O90-WhnDMdlvdndvspnwhwsthnthg.html

old_codger1

weegie.geek wrote: »

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.

Here's a picture of the sort of cars they use.



Years ago I used to drive lorries and my line of sight would have been at least 3ft above that. Any large van's drivers eye-line would be roughly about that level and quite a few of the larger 4x4's drivers wouldn't be much lower.

DatabaseError

Now I understand why Clarkson suggested all lorry drivers were murderers, with that view over the OPs fence, no wonder they all turn to crime

toadyfrog

Most of the people on here want to get their pictures removed, I've just spent all week trawling round all the places that I might be just to see where I am.

darich

isofa wrote: »

Fair enough if this isn't on your tickets - but on websites and tickets T+Cs of events I've attended, including Wimbledon which I go to every year, these exact T+Cs are listed, they specifically mention that if any images containing you are used in commercial purposes you fully agree to your image being used and can claim no recompense for this. I've also seen this quoted in areas of filming in the UK.

This is belt and braces though - "butt covering" to use another term.
Legally, people could do nothing even without the t&cs as quoted. But the venue puts them on to give them cover and immediately kill off anyone's chances who might try to claim money.

old_codger1

ktflosspot wrote: »

I did say that there was a more serious and personal reason for not wanting my childrens faces to be seen. It is not because of a random person who may or may not see them on the web but because of a very real, know to me person who is a threat if they find out where my children live.

Yes, point taken... and well made

I think the point is, as has been said, that if people can get the shots changed, (or removed altogether if the problem can't be got round), then it shouldn't be a issue.

For the reasons I gave, I think it's an excellent service and the vast majority of people will gain an enormous amount of pleasure from it but, as you say, there can always be anomalies.

One last thought... it's a new service at the moment. If it's anything like the googleearth product the pictures will become outdated and so less relevant. In fact, I'd imagine it will be updated even less frequently because googleearth uses satellite imagery, (which is already being gathered for various reasons), whereas street view uses guys running around in cars. That's got to be incredibly expensive so I think these are likely to be the only shots taken for quite a few years.

old_codger1

weegie.geek wrote: »

A fence that people in cars and people on foot, which will be 99.9% of traffic going past, can't see over.

Hmm... not sure about that. I checked the specs of the Vauxhal Astra and it's about 58in tall, IIRC. The camera is probably set at about... what.... 90-95in from street level???... so if there's a 6ft, (72in), fence on the pavement, (itself about 5-6in above street level), and it's, say, 12ft, (144in), from the centre of the road lane to the edge of the property, (taken the pavement width into account), we have...

(90-72) = 18 diff in height
144/18*72=576in or 48ft

So they would have to be roughly 48ft inside a 6ft fence to be seen. Obviously, this all depends on the lie of the land and whatnot.

I'd imagine if people have 6ft fences it's not going to be that much of an issue. I haven't got any fences at all at the front and to see the back garden they'd have to be able to see over the house so that's a bit of a non-starter.

As you say, though, these things have to be thought about for people who value their privacy for whatever reason

harryhound

If you want a 6ft barrier in your "front" garden, you had better make sure it is a hedge.
Fences and walls that high are against the planning regulations.

I think she's being overprotective and paranoid but is that really such a bad thing? For whoever is a threat to them to find them, they'd have to be looking in the right area, and it'd be easier for them to just stake out the schools in that area, but better to be overprotective than not, surely?

In fairness to the original poster, she has already explained that she feels that there is a specific threat to her and her children.
As a general point, I think we have far too much of the "little emperor" syndrome, as the Chinese call it. Pampered kids who expect to be financed by the bank of mum and dad, transported everywhere by the taxi service of mum and dad etc. etc. and as a result are out of touch with standing on their own feet in the real world.
Surprise surprise, they are back here in 10 years time on the debt free wanna be board.