Google does evil
I can be long and short about this, but Google trampling privacy laws by publishing recognizable pictures of people with its new Street View feature means that my doubts about their “do no evil” PR slogan have vanished - it’s indeed just a PR slogan, not something they actually believe in and adhere to.
I’m a photographer, and this is a clear-cut case: if you want to publish pictures of people, you need a model release. Period. Google’s lawyers know that, but in their “we’re the king of the hill” arrogance, they simply don’t care.
I might drop my Gmail adress over this. Any alternatives for Adsense?
Stumble it!
Post to del.icio.us
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:03 am
“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.
June 3rd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
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.
June 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I added all the best “Google Street View” here : http://www.geo-trotter.com/cat-street-view.php.
June 4th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
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/
June 4th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
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.
June 5th, 2007 at 9:34 am
@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.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
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.
June 10th, 2007 at 9:56 am
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.