Google Slapped Again

[The-Spec]

If they aren't breaking the law then they wouldn't be taken to court so much. They didn't even start bluring things out intil they where slapped with a court order just to do that. These people just want some space in a shrinking world... come on.

Google has no legal privilege to allow or disallow you from copyrighting an image that you have taken, regardless of what picture that may be.

Hell look at apple, they turned people's lives around and buried them in court-appointed papers... all because some guy had a picture of an iphone and at the time, a few unproven rumors it was unreleased.

Antitrust? Are any of their logos in the picture? How rare is the architecture and design of the building itself? Where the pictures taken during a crime?

These would be questions I would have to answer. And the very legal decisions would always be split on money that I DO NOT HAVE. When its an average Joe against a company, it always boils down to how much pity you have on your side (and how much your life is worth). Your ignorance of how the system and the world at large operates is laughable... if it wheren't so sad at the same time.

[wiskic10_4]

These people just want some space in a shrinking world... come on.

I guess I just don't see how having a digital image of a street-point view of your property accessible on the Internet is "shrinking" anyone's world. If they were zooming in on your windows or even your backyard, then that would be much different - but the images on Google Maps are no different than what any passerby would see. It seems completely innocent to me, and I don't have any reason to suspect otherwise.

Hell look at apple, they turned people's lives around and buried them in court-appointed papers... all because some guy had a picture of an iphone and at the time, a few unproven rumors it was unreleased.

Can you link me? I think I remember hearing the rumor, but I thought it was a fake, and I never heard of anyone going to court over it - I Googled "iPhone leak" "Apple sues," etc, etc - but i never found anything about it other than a blog on a fake picture of the supposed iPhone 4 for Verizon... and nobody got sued or buried in court papers in that article.

Antitrust? Are any of their logos in the picture? How rare is the architecture and design of the building itself? Where the pictures taken during a crime?

These would be questions I would have to answer. And the very legal decisions would always be split on money that I DO NOT HAVE. When its an average Joe against a company, it always boils down to how much pity you have on your side (and how much your life is worth).

That is an excellent point, and very true. However, to my knowledge, Google hasn't sued any "little people" - doesn't mean it hasn't happened, I just haven't heard about it. The legal system in our country is laughable at times, however, I don't think it's always about money or pity - remember when McDonald's got sued for coffee being too hot? Or Philip-Morris being sued by smokers with lung cancer? I think it largely depends on how well a weasely lawyer can twist the law into saying what he wants it to say, and then convince a jury to buy into it. And unfortunately, an intelligence test is not used in juror screening.

I'm not sure why you think that ownership of a photograph somehow depends upon what the photograph is of? Do you think the paparazzi send Angelina Jolie a check every time they take her picture? Let me break it down for ya, as I understand it.

if(property==inClearPublicView){
   pictureSomeonesProperty!=saidPersonsProperty;
   pictureSomeonesProperty==pictureTakersProperty;
}
else
   print("Best be having permission first. =D  ");

Alternatively, you can check out chapter two in this book: Legal Handbook for Photographers

Your ignorance of how the system and the world at large operates is laughable... if it wheren't so sad at the same time.

Damn. Talking smack again.

Well, I challenge you to provide me with evidence that the pictures on Google Maps street-view are in violation with any United States law. I'm not saying that they're not - I'm just saying that I don't know of any, and a thirty-second search (on Google ) didn't turn up anything for me. So please, The-Spec - enlighten us.

[HYBR|D]

Can you link me? I think I remember hearing the rumor, but I thought it was a fake, and I never heard of anyone going to court over it - I Googled "iPhone leak" "Apple sues," etc, etc - but i never found anything about it other than a blog on a fake picture of the supposed iPhone 4 for Verizon... and nobody got sued or buried in court papers in that article.

Here's the link from gizmodo that started the whole lost iphone4 thing

http://gizmodo.com/5520164/this-is-apples-next-iphone

The case didn't make it to court, apple tried to pull legal mumbo jumbo while throwing a temper tantrum because there "God" phone got leaked./
the case ended up getting dropped, and Steve Jobs is still butt-hurt over the whole incident.

and now Gizmodo staff are no longer invited to Apple events. not that it's a big loss or anything ...

@ The_Spec, you failed to respond to my post.. Hows this street view different to you invading webmasters privacy and defacing there property?

[morganlefay]

Morgan. When it all boils down to it... the world isn't run by a company, the free masons, the illuminati, or even a bunch of jews. Instead the world is exclusively run by stupid people and you happen to be one of them. So of course you see no problem with it, you're an idiot!

Well I least I dont smell like poo

I agree the street view is a very handy tool...recently visited Cleveland....never been before.
Thanks to street view and google maps I was able to view the hotels.....and use it to view the areas and plan my trips to the Rock and Roll Museum and the Browns Stadium....basically walk the hood before actually even visiting....it was very cool

I also used it before I traveled to England.....and was very familiar with the areas I was staying before I even visited and again was able to plan my sight seeing.

Personally ...I love Google and all their gadgets. I think they are innovative and progressive and there are alot scarier things out in the interweb then them

MLF

[The-Spec]

I challenge you to provide me with evidence that the pictures on Google Maps street-view are in violation with any United States law.

§§ 652A-652I, because I half-heartedly looked. You didn't even do that.

unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.

It DOES NOT MATTER how clear these pictures and recordings are. Having these cameras setup a yard above the vehicle itself to peer over fences... and just the potential to view something inside a home is enought.

appropriation of a person's name or likeness; successful assertions of this right commonly involve defendant's use of a person's name or likeness on a product label or in advertising a product or service. A similar concept is the "right of publicity" in Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition §§46-47 (1995). The distinction is that privacy protects against "injury to personal feelings", while the right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or face. As a practical matter, celebrities generally sue under the right of publicity, while ordinary citizens sue under privacy.

publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home. publication that places a person in a false light, which is similar to defamation.

The private facts where gained the moment they took these pictures not just when they sniffed wireless traffic. Every bit of it applies to them... all of it.

Hows this street view different to you invading webmasters privacy and defacing there property?

What? You mean these companys are monetizing the internet? All these nations that are censoring themselves to the point of complete separation from the internet at large? To hell with these guys. The only real argument to be had are these Mom-And-Pop.com domains.

[wiskic10_4]

Holy crap The-Spec... I'm impressed!

I'll edit this post when I get back from AA to debate it a little further - or maybe even agree with you (doubtful).

But thanks for bringing something of substance to the thread, instead of name-calling and bullheaded opinions.

[EDIT]

Ok, well here's a link: Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 652A-E

I don't find Google to be guilty of invading anyone's privacy (maybe the wifi sniffing - but that's another issue entirely - I'm debating the legal right of Google to obtain and make public the photographs featured on Google Maps Street View)

unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera, tapping telephone), searching wallet or purse, repeated and persistent telephone calls, obtaining financial data (e.g., bank balance) without person's consent, etc.

It DOES NOT MATTER how clear these pictures and recordings are. Having these cameras setup a yard above the vehicle itself to peer over fences... and just the potential to view something inside a home is enought.

As I've said before, the pictures are taken from a public viewpoint, so anything they contain were viewable by the public at the time the picture was taken. It's not like they go and zoom in on your windows and your backyard. If you live in a corner house, your backyard is viewable from the street in larger vehicles (ie trash truck, etc) - it's your responsibility to build a bigger fence if you don't want people to see what's in your backyard. Most people don't care. And I certainly don't think Google intended to "peer over fences" - the cameras are more likely set up high so they can capture more distance (instead of the jacked-up Ford in front of the Google Van).

appropriation of a person's name or likeness; successful assertions of this right commonly involve defendant's use of a person's name or likeness on a product label or in advertising a product or service. A similar concept is the "right of publicity" in Restatement (Third) Unfair Competition §§46-47 (1995). The distinction is that privacy protects against "injury to personal feelings", while the right of publicity protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or face. As a practical matter, celebrities generally sue under the right of publicity, while ordinary citizens sue under privacy.

publication of private facts, for example, income tax data, sexual relations, personal letters, family quarrels, medical treatment, photographs of person in his/her home. publication that places a person in a false light, which is similar to defamation.

The private facts where gained the moment they took these pictures not just when they sniffed wireless traffic. Every bit of it applies to them... all of it.

That bit has nothing to do with the subject at hand, that I can see.

The wireless traffic they sniffed and the data they collected was never released to the public, so no defamation there...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...wifi-sniffing/

[brokencrow]

It DOES NOT MATTER how clear these pictures and recordings are. Having these cameras setup a yard above the vehicle itself to peer over fences... and just the potential to view something inside a home is enought.

Such photos are routinely used in real estate and tax assessments. I work for a number of real estate appraisers, and they'd all be in jail if taking pictures of another's house was unwarranted. In the county I live in, street-view photos of about any house in the county are available online.

Anybody here really a match for Google's legal dep't? I doubt it.

[The-Spec]

Actually it comes with a feature to zoom in and out. But it doesn't matter how clear the pictures are or even if it was taken from public viewpoint. If people don't want their pictures taken then you should leave them alone... enought said.

it's your responsibility to build a bigger fence if you don't want people to see what's in your backyard.

But why push people to the point of even building a fence? The fact that you would even consider this as a solution only shows they've gone to far.

An incidental Berlin wall reference, at that? Really?! Im taking the high road in this thread without even trying. Thanks to you, now when people hear "google"... they're going to think Communist Russia.

[wiskic10_4]

An incidental Berlin wall reference, at that? Really?! Im taking the high road in this thread without even trying. Thanks to you, now when people hear "google"... they're going to think Communist Russia.

lmao. Communist Russia even!? Well, whatever. To quote one of my favorite characters from one of my favorite movies,
"Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man"
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsogswrH6ck)

I think we've beaten this horse to death. Google's going to do what they want. I'm sure that their legal department is funded generously, and that they are prepared to take on the argument should it ever arise in the States. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with street view. Clearly some others do. I agree to disagree.

That is all.