Google ordered to pay woman whose cleavage was caught by its street view camera...

[Godfrey]

I dunno. Dress in something that bares half your boobs, sit on the front porch and bend forward, and then a car with an automated scanning camera happens to snap a photo ... There is no intent in that, the car is just recording the scene as it passes. Seems like a case of senseless litigation gone wrong.

Far as I'm concerned, if you're going to dress in such a way that your bust, junk, or butt are exposed to the public, and a completely automated camera system snaps a photo of you, well, that's no invasion of privacy. The judge ruled incorrectly.

G

 

[Sparrow]

oh and surveillance cameras ... wow, many lawyers will get rich on costs alone

 

[jsrockit]

... 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?

No, because our laws allow for it. The area where this woman's incident occurred supposedly does not.

 

[rbiemer]

Even though her face was blurred out automatically by Google’s algorithms, the fact that she was sitting on her own doorstep made her easily identifiable to people who knew her.

Grillo claims that she suffered emotional damage as a result of the photograph, particularly at the hands of mocking coworkers at the bank she worked at

(from the linked story, my emphasis added)
But, presumably those "people who knew her" and could easily identify her will have already seen the cleavage...is there such a thing as a reverse class action suit? So she can sue all those people...as well, I'm surprised that the bank wasn't sued for those mocking co-workers. Clearly the bank needs a policy in place and should be penalized...🙄

Different country from mine but I really can't argue with the decision that she was not in a public place--it is her front yard--but I also I can't see how Google becomes responsible for the mocking co-workers.
Rob

 

[kxl]

In Quebec, the Quebec Human Rights Code grants all humans the right to their private life. For photography, this broadly-worded right allows each individual person in Quebec control over the use of their image.

Whether or not we agree with this is moot and irrelevant; it is the law. Here's a summary of the Canadian Supreme Court finding:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii817/1998canlii817.html

SO, based on this precedent, it is irrelevant whether or not her stoop is private or public; Google clearly violated the Quebec Human Rights Code. The only question here is whether or not her reputation was damaged thus causing emotional distress. The redued amount seems more like a fine for a technical violation of the Human Rights Code, than it is punitive damages for emotional distress.

 

[burancap]

...Whether or not we agree with this is moot and irrelevant; it is the law...

Makes you wonder if she even knew anything about the law? Furthermore, how did all of the mocking coworkers know about the image?

Oh, and ... might there now be ambulance Google Maps Van chasers running around the Great White North alerting innocent tubetop wearers that today is their day to get PAID?

 

[haempe]

... so we need to start pixelating photos of the Chrysler Building then? ... that's private property too ...

In Germany google street view has to blur out complete houses if prompted by the owner.

oh and surveillance cameras ... wow, many lawyers will get rich on costs alone

IMHO there is quite a difference between being recorded for security purposes (with deletion after a given time) or being published in the worlds most used navigation tool.
All laws regarding the right of your own image (that I know) restrict only the publishing, not the recording.

 

[kxl]

Makes you wonder if she even knew anything about the law? Furthermore, how did all of the mocking coworkers know about the image?

Oh, and ... might there now be ambulance Google Maps Van chasers running around the Great White North alerting innocent tubetop wearers that today is their day to get PAID?

It does open a potential floodgate, doesn't it? :angel:

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I was listen about yesterday on local radio. It makes sense because Google is trying to avoid to have people "overexposed". And as they explained her case on the radio, her boobs might potentially became google maps tourists attraction.

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.

If I'm not mistaken in exact details, it was in Montreal as bylaw, but then it was repealed.
I was wondering because I did a lot of street photography in Montreal, in 2005-2011.

 

[DougFord]

Want'a make an easy 2k next time you're in Canada? Two words - plumber's butt.

 

[raid]

Manly

Manly

Now, what if it had been a man exposing part of his manly boobs? Would this be legal? I am sure it would be disgusting, but is it legal? 😀 :bang: 😎 😱

 

[Sparrow]

No, because our laws allow for it. The area where this woman's incident occurred supposedly does not.

... sorry, but no that was the judges opinion, that is not statute law

 

[FrankS]

Seems that it is Quebec law.

 

[YYV_146]

Now, what if it had been a man exposing part of his manly boobs? Would this be legal? I am sure it would be disgusting, but is it legal? 😀 :bang: 😎 😱

You'll be ordered to pay Google for damaging the eyes of the people who censor the map 😛

 

[kxl]

... sorry, but no that was the judges opinion, that is not statute law

Sorry, but it is statutory. This case was decided under the Right to Privacy provisions of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which, in the province of Quebec, has precedence over ALL provincial legislation. Only the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, have priority over the Quebec charter.

Precedent for this particular case in the OP was established in Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591.

 

[colyn]

"she suffered emotional damage"... What a load of bull!!!! If it was so embarrassing, why was she outside dressed like that....

 

[rfaspen]

No hope for my world?

I was told that (in the U.S.) anything visible while being in a public place is part of the "public domain" (not to be confused with the software/copyright version of this term). Thus, if a person is not dressed at all, but standing in their front yard where pedestrians and drivers can see them, they are not in a "private" place where privacy can be expected. I know this concept has been tested in the U.S., for example it was tested by folks standing in a National Park that were recording the activities of oil extraction crews and/or timber extraction activities. In these cases, the viewing and recording of publicly visible activities was not questioned (and it was challenged).

I really worry about this precedent. For more reasons than my photographic adventures... No offense to our lawyer friends here on RFF, but there are some out there with a desire to push the margin of common sense for personal gain. BTW, in my town (in the U.S.) I been explicitly told I have no expectation of privacy on portions of my own property, and again, probably anywhere on my property that is visible from a public location. I was flatly told as much by our District Attorney during a Q+A session about maintaining sidewalks and personal liability (don't get me started on this topic 😡).

I am not a lawyer. Not sure I want to be one. Not sure I enjoy having them as friends (OK, I'm just kidding on that).

 

[Keith]

Hmmm .... storm in a 'D' cup! 😀

 

[Scrambler]

The law on this varies by jurisdiction, so even state to state can be different. The intriguing precedent here is that where laws prohibit use of your identifiable image, blanking your face is insufficient.

In the USA, and many other areas with descendants of the English legal system there is no ownership of your own image when in a public place, which usually means when visible from an area open to the public but may mean visible from publicly owned property.

In other areas (France for eg) you have an absolute ownership regardless of circumstances.

In Australia as photographer I "own" any image I make. In Queensland I am entitled to record any sensory experience I am party to so if I can see it I am entitled to photograph it. If you don't want me photographing it, deny me permission to see it. Which in general is hard if I'm on public property.

 

[Sparrow]

Sorry, but it is statutory. This case was decided under the Right to Privacy provisions of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which, in the province of Quebec, has precedence over ALL provincial legislation. Only the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, have priority over the Quebec charter.

Precedent for this particular case in the OP was established in Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591.

... ah, sorry, under the "Right to Privacy provisions of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms" it is law ... I bet it's written in french too .... they like laws such as that, the French, you wouldn't want photos of oneself, or ones mistress popping up in Paris Match eh? ... even if Julie Gayet has the better decolletage

... I stand corrected