Comments on: Google does evil http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/ Everything and the kitchen sink Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:47:42 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: cdegroot http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7669 Sun, 10 Jun 2007 08:56:26 +0000 http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7669 Thanks, jon - interesting case. I'm quite surprised that a court would allow "art" such freedom. However, in Google's case, there clearly is no "art" involved :). Leaves the money-making bit. You're probably right there, at the moment. Google is an advertising company and has yet to find out how to make money otherwise, this is another example. But they're clearly using the images for commerce. No, I'm not a lawyer either. Just feel my privacy rights walzed over by Google, that's all. Thanks, jon - interesting case. I’m quite surprised that a court would allow “art” such freedom. However, in Google’s case, there clearly is no “art” involved :) .

Leaves the money-making bit. You’re probably right there, at the moment. Google is an advertising company and has yet to find out how to make money otherwise, this is another example. But they’re clearly using the images for commerce.

No, I’m not a lawyer either. Just feel my privacy rights walzed over by Google, that’s all.

]]> by: jon http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7627 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:00:06 +0000 http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7627 of course this has been beaten to death over, and over, and over, and over, everywhere. but for the purposes of spreading information as opposed to "that's creppy so i'm gonna play like it's actually illegal" :) it's not as cut & dry as you make it cdegroot. for one, google isn't directly using street view to make money, to my knowledge. for two, one such well-known case that contradicts your point http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=flock&rls=FlockInc.%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=philip-lorca+dicorcia+lawsuit&btnG=Search i'm a photographer too, that don't mean i'm a lawyer. ;-) j. of course this has been beaten to death over, and over, and over, and over, everywhere.

but for the purposes of spreading information as opposed to “that’s creppy so i’m gonna play like it’s actually illegal” :)

it’s not as cut & dry as you make it cdegroot.

for one, google isn’t directly using street view to make money, to my knowledge.

for two, one such well-known case that contradicts your point

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=flock&rls=FlockInc.%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=philip-lorca+dicorcia+lawsuit&btnG=Search

i’m a photographer too, that don’t mean i’m a lawyer. ;-)

j.

]]> by: cdegroot http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7580 Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:34:13 +0000 http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7580 @Vassili and Mamboking - the exemptions seem to be for news reporting, not for making money. I learnt that as soon as people's faces are recognizable and certainly if the work is for commercial purposes, you want a model release. @Vassili and Mamboking - the exemptions seem to be for news reporting, not for making money. I learnt that as soon as people’s faces are recognizable and certainly if the work is for commercial purposes, you want a model release.

]]> by: Vassili Bykov http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7570 Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:18:25 +0000 http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7570 Law and privacy are a complex subject, but I don't see how what Google does is different from what any news network does broadcasting a news report. I believe the spirit of the law is that showing people as "part of the scenery" in a public place, as a record of that place or events happening there, is not considered a violation of privacy. Nobody has a default _absolute_ right of privacy in a public place--that is why it's a public place, after all. Law and privacy are a complex subject, but I don’t see how what Google does is different from what any news network does broadcasting a news report. I believe the spirit of the law is that showing people as “part of the scenery” in a public place, as a record of that place or events happening there, is not considered a violation of privacy. Nobody has a default _absolute_ right of privacy in a public place–that is why it’s a public place, after all.

]]> by: Mamboking http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7568 Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:39:40 +0000 http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7568 I think the way Google are using the images is fine, at least in the U.S. Here is a page from the American Society of Media Photographers that discusses when it is ok to not have a Model Release: http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/ I think the way Google are using the images is fine, at least in the U.S. Here is a page from the American Society of Media Photographers that discusses when it is ok to not have a Model Release:

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/

]]> by: Geo-Trotter http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7553 Sun, 03 Jun 2007 12:19:30 +0000 http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7553 I added all the best "Google Street View" here : http://www.geo-trotter.com/cat-street-view.php. I added all the best “Google Street View” here : http://www.geo-trotter.com/cat-street-view.php.

]]> by: cdegroot http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7552 Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:20:12 +0000 http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7552 Indeed - you are allowed to *take* photographs. Publication, however, is another thing. In the case of Flickr, it can be argued that Flickr is not the publisher, but the uploader of the photo's is. And they should make sure that they have the right to upload the material, both copyright-wise as well as privacy-right-wise. Indeed - you are allowed to *take* photographs. Publication, however, is another thing.

In the case of Flickr, it can be argued that Flickr is not the publisher, but the uploader of the photo’s is. And they should make sure that they have the right to upload the material, both copyright-wise as well as privacy-right-wise.

]]> by: Patrick Mueller http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7543 Sun, 03 Jun 2007 00:03:38 +0000 http://www.cdegroot.com/blog/2007/06/02/google-does-evil/#comment-7543 "The Photographer's Right" @ http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm would seem to contradict you. "The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are tradition- ally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks." Though there doesn't seem to be discussion of publication there. Never the less, isn't Flickr also infringing? Lots of pictures there, with plenty of pictures of people, in private places, and it's highly unlikely they've secured model releases for all those people. “The Photographer’s Right” @ http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm would seem to contradict you.

“The general rule in the United States
is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are
in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are tradition-
ally considered public are streets,
sidewalks, and public parks.”

Though there doesn’t seem to be discussion of publication there. Never the less, isn’t Flickr also infringing? Lots of pictures there, with plenty of pictures of people, in private places, and it’s highly unlikely they’ve secured model releases for all those people.

]]>