erikhaugsby
killer of threads
R
rpsawin
Guest
English law is different than American law in such matters. Under English law their rights probably were violated.
Best regards,
Bob
lmd91343
There's my Proctor-Silex!
I am not a lawyer. My thought is, if you are on public property, your image is fair game. If you are in front of your house, you have a expectation of privacy.
The article mentioned a women who could be identified from a street view at the front of her house. She was hiding from an abusive spouse. Wow! That is a problem. She could get killed. Twenty five years ago several colleagues and I moved a female coworker to a new apartment while her abusive husband was being held under arrest for spousal abuse. This is not as uncommon as we would hope.
The article mentioned a women who could be identified from a street view at the front of her house. She was hiding from an abusive spouse. Wow! That is a problem. She could get killed. Twenty five years ago several colleagues and I moved a female coworker to a new apartment while her abusive husband was being held under arrest for spousal abuse. This is not as uncommon as we would hope.
chris000
Landscaper
I do not believe that the right to privacy is enshrined in English Law.
I'm not a fan of Googles latest offering - not because of privacy issues but simply because I don't really see the point of it. Why do we need pictures of every street on the Internet?
But despite that, I find myself supporting them because if those that are complaining succeed in getting the images removed en masse then it is another nail in the coffin of photography on the streets in the UK.
Given the problems that we already have in the UK re. harrassment by police and pseudo police, I see the existence of Google Street View as a good precedent to use if the Police ever stop me or arrest me. If they have not stopped the Google pictures, what justification have they to stop mine?
mr_phillip
Well-known
There are no privacy laws in the UK which prevent images being made of people, places or artifacts visible in public spaces unless the subject is deemed to be protected in the interests of national security (military bases, power stations, etc), or the image is considered to be a gross intrusion of privacy (so standing on the street and shooting into peoples homes is not on).
Where you can get in trouble is how you then use images of individuals. Any person has the right to object to how their image is being used if they can prove (in a court of law) that the use of their images is in some way damaging to them. So it's ok for me to photograph a person I see in the street, but if I then use their image to promote (for instance) Satanism, then they may well have a good case for damages. Even then however, the onus remains on them to prove in court that they have been significantly damaged by the association.
Google have gone the extra mile by trying to blur out every face but, as they've used software to do it, it's inevitable that there are going to be a few misses. Google, as a massive commercial (and very suable) company which carries advertising, are naturally much more likely to incur accusations of intrusion than any regular individual photographer though.
bmattock
Veteran
I am not a lawyer either, but that is not correct. You have an expectation of privacy in your house. And even then, if a person can see in without resorting to things like binoculars or telephoto lenses, anything they see is fair game. You want privacy, close the drapes. The courts have agreed with this in the US to the largest extent - hence hired helicopters hovering over celebrity weddings.
The article mentioned a women who could be identified from a street view at the front of her house. She was hiding from an abusive spouse. Wow! That is a problem. She could get killed. Twenty five years ago several colleagues and I moved a female coworker to a new apartment while her abusive husband was being held under arrest for spousal abuse. This is not as uncommon as we would hope.
I agree, that's an issue. I would hope such things would be handled on a case-by-case basis instead of outlawing all public photography - unfortunately, I think that's the direction things are headed.
breathstealer
Established
As a first year law student, it's my impression that the law of privacy is far more established in the US, where there's a specific tort of intrusion. There traditionally isn't any remedy for the breach of privacy in the UK, and recent cases involving it tend to rely on the fact that UK laws do specifically enshrine the EU's human rights legislation, which does protect privacy.
I'm actually supposed to be writing an essay on this topic soon so I'll come back with some more detailed findings as I do my research.
I'm actually supposed to be writing an essay on this topic soon so I'll come back with some more detailed findings as I do my research.
bmattock
Veteran
mich8261
Well-known
if you understand French, this film is very interesting. There's an English version (I imagine it's just subtitled), but I can't find it online. The French civil code (code civil in French) which is in place in France and the province of Québec (Canada) actually protects one's right to their image (likeness) regardless of where one is (i.e. this protection is also present if one is in a public place). Some cases have even seen it extended to one's property (including designs). The most absurd example is that the individual/company responsible for lighting the Eiffel tower holds the right to that image, i.e. you can't photograph the tower at night and publish the image without their consent. The film also covers photographic rights in the US. They use the case of (name escapes me right now) who was featured on the cover of the New York Times Magazine in the 1970s and sued the magazine but lost. It was a First Amendment argument.
MikeL
Go Fish
This guy complained and they removed the photo: too much to drink?
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
[Perhaps it's] because the public doesn't see where the CCTV feeds go? All it takes with Street View is a few clicks through your browser and you're confronted with last night in all its glory.
Ignorance is bliss.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
My favorite reference was to something done in California by a group documenting the coastline of CA. A certain famous actress, Barbra Streisand, filed suit because they took a picture of her Malibu manse for the project. Once she files suit, everyone saw the arial pix of her house. Had she STFU, nobody would have ever been the wiser.
I also don't like the view of my house from Google Street View, but technology moves on, so I learned the lesson. I won't complain, so find me if you can...
I also don't like the view of my house from Google Street View, but technology moves on, so I learned the lesson. I won't complain, so find me if you can...
ilchkai
Newbie
in the uk the situation is less than clear in regard to photography in public places, with any number of legislations and legal insturments becoming applicable depending on the situation and place.
in short: one has the right
a good guide to rights and wrongs of uk photography can be found here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
much has been made about the recent changes in terrorism legislation, for example here:
just my two cents worth
kb
in short: one has the right
- to freely take pictures in public places
- to use photographs of people taken in public places as they wish - including for commercial gain.
the exception for photographing people is (1) where the subject(s) have reasonable expectation of privacy (invasion of privacy); and (2) when action causes another person 'alarm or distress'(harassment)- to use photographs of people taken in public places as they wish - including for commercial gain.
a good guide to rights and wrongs of uk photography can be found here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
much has been made about the recent changes in terrorism legislation, for example here:
"Photographers angry at terror law" BBC, 16 February 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm
"Is it a crime to take pictures?" BBC, 16 February 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm
"Parliament criticises police for obstructing photographers" BJP, 23 March 2009 http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=848092
at a recent talk (brighton, 10 march 2009) martin parr (magnum) said that he's never really had any problems with anyone protesting at him taking pictures - and as a policy always offers to send people prints of his pictures... reassuring i thought."Is it a crime to take pictures?" BBC, 16 February 2009
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm
"Parliament criticises police for obstructing photographers" BJP, 23 March 2009 http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=848092
just my two cents worth
kb
btgc
Veteran
People are strange....they care about ratty picture of them while no one cares all their living and habits can be extracted from credit card, paypal and other electronically kept historical data.