Google ordered to pay woman whose cleavage was caught by its street view camera...
- Thread starter jsrockit
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 46
- Views 5K
daveleo
what?
Does this set a threatening legal precedent about photographing people in public places ?
If I took that picture (or a similar one) and put it in the forum gallery here, what could happen ?
If I took that picture (or a similar one) and put it in the forum gallery here, what could happen ?
raid
Dad Photographer
You would get back smiles from many people here, but who knows who would sue you!
btgc
Veteran
Damn, photo is gone.
stompyq
Well-known
I think in Quebec, it is required by law to ask people in public spaces before you photograph them. Correct me if this is wrong.
FrankS
Registered User
It might as a stretch, but Google as a big company is more exposed to litigation than a private person, and Googles pictures are globally available, not just in an obscure forum gallery.
micromontenegro
Well-known
:bang: They call THAT cleavage?
daveleo
what?
mdarnton
Well-known
Streisand effect. She get's 5% of her original claim (I wonder if that's after the attorney's cut or before?) and the whole world gets to read the whole story AND know her name AND see most of the photo, or at least imagine it. I wonder how much better she feels now.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
What wouldn't people do to make an extra buck or two. So basically this girl prostituted her cleavage for 45k but only received 2k. Serves her well.
seakayaker1
Well-known
I do not know how someone who is in plain view of the General Public by sitting out on the front stairs of their home can state an invasion of privacy. If you do not want to be ridiculed then do not go outside dressed in fashion that sets you up to be ridiculed.
Once again over the top on the protection of people who do not use their common sense and everyone else has to adjust to the welfare of people who may be just to stupid to know how to dress in public. (.....and the rest of us have to behave as if she is in her own living room with nobody home.)
Once again over the top on the protection of people who do not use their common sense and everyone else has to adjust to the welfare of people who may be just to stupid to know how to dress in public. (.....and the rest of us have to behave as if she is in her own living room with nobody home.)
jsrockit
Moderator
Isn't their land private property? I get what you are saying, but she's not on public property.
FrankS
Registered User
But do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy sitting on your front step in full view of the road?
Corran
Well-known
Anything you can see from public land is not protected. Google the Streisand Effect as already mentioned...
I don't know if the law is different in Canada.
taemo
eat sleep shoot
my guess is that the woman figured it was Google and that she would have made quick easy money
the cleavage wasn't any different than what you can see on a daily walk
good on the judge seeing through her plan for quick bucks "caused her emotional damage and triggered a bout of depression"
http://gizmodo.com/google-fined-2-000-for-street-view-cleavage-shot-1653199227
in the end the lawyer wins since that $2000 will most likely go to his/her fee
the cleavage wasn't any different than what you can see on a daily walk
good on the judge seeing through her plan for quick bucks "caused her emotional damage and triggered a bout of depression"
http://gizmodo.com/google-fined-2-000-for-street-view-cleavage-shot-1653199227
in the end the lawyer wins since that $2000 will most likely go to his/her fee
kxl
Social Documentary
In Quebec, their human rights code guarantees an individual the right of control to his own image. Their Supreme Court has mandated that permission must be granted by an individual for "editorial use," i.e., anything that is not news. My wife's got family in Montreal, and we've had this discussion a couple of times at family events.
daveleo
what?
Well, I've been standing by the sidewalk all morning wearing only a hat, waiting for the GoogleCam to roll by . . . . . oops . . . here come the police . . . .
jsrockit
Moderator
I get that... and I may not agree with her, but her property is not public. And it is something that is not legal where she lives apparently.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
Sparrow
Veteran
... so we need to start pixelating photos of the Chrysler Building then? ... that's private property too ... and what about anything with an advertisement, that's copyright, eh?
... oh, and photos with products with patented items in them ... all those Kodak signs I've photographed over the years, it could save the company, suing me alone ... as we know companies are people after all, eh?
Similar threads
