Google Street View car claims first victim (a deer)

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

Source: Computerworld

February 3, 2009 (PC Advisor) Gathering ground-level images for Google Inc.'s voyeuristic Street View application, one of the search giant's mobile camera cars hit and killed a baby deer while snapping on a rural road in upstate New York.



Read more: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9127340&source=NLT_NET

---

To be fair, Google's expression of regret was quick and sincere.

[bananas]

1. Rural roads in upstate New York can be extremely hazardous

especially during winter.

[global1]

2. I Just Found Out About Google Streetview The Other Day And Found My ........

house and street on the internet. This is creepy. Are they actually trying to map every street in the U.S at ground level? Why?
What does their vehicle look like? Any pictures of their vehicle that takes the pics? From viewing my street - they actually are able to get a 360 degree shot that you can move around. They caught my neighbor outside watering grass in the process and when I went to my neighbors address to see their shot - they pixelated her out on the shot.

This just seems like a major invasion of privacy. Imagine how the deer feels?

[MicaelS]

3. Plenty of images

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Google+Street+View+car&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

[global1]

10. Just Looked At All The Photos - Are They Hiring Just Common Folk To......

mount these camera's on their cars and take the shots? What are they trying to accomplish? What is the goal of streetview? Is it to just show what they can do? Is it to sell real estate? Is it to show us how vulnerable we are? Why are they doing this? Looks like it may be happening all around the world too.

[Regret My New Name]

14. I use it to get feel of new places that I'm going to.

I have my GPS in my car, but it's always nice to see a ground view of new places and its surrounding areas. Means I can focus more on driving than trying to figure out exactly where and how I can get somewhere.

[Xithras]

17. Contractors

They have hired contractors around the world to mount these things on their car. Why? To build a better map. With streetview, you can "drive" a trip without ever leaving home. My wife, an otherwise brilliant woman, gets lost very easily. I've already used it several times to show her how to get somewhere.

On edit...

Also, a friend of mine was trying to rent a new house about a month ago. He used streetview to "check out the neighborhood" on many of the rentals before visiting them.

[TlalocW]

4. My street in Tulsa is well mapped out

They even took a picture of my side-business' van on a day when I had parked it on the street instead of in the driveway so my phone number is visible... Of course, I want my phone number out there, but I'm unlisted otherwise.

TlalocW

[wtmusic]

5. I thought using photographs of your property was illegal

unless your permission has been granted.

I know you can't use photographs of buildings for commercials purposes unless the owner has given permission.

[bananas]

6. Good morning.

You've just woken up to find the right of individuals, corporations, and governments to photograph anything which is in plain view.

[wtmusic]

11. But they are not allowed to use it for anything which would

advance a business interest.

"2. Is the photograph to be used for an advertisement? (In law, “advertisement” is very broadly defined.)

3. Is the photograph going to be used for commercial purposes, like a brochure, calendar, poster, web site or other use that is intended to enhance a business interest?

If the answers to question #2 and question #3 are both No, then you do not need a release.

Otherwise, you do need a release."

http://www.asmp.org/commerce/legal/releases/FAQ1.php#q6

[bananas]

13. That's a biased website.

Check the amateur photography websites instead of the "bullshit-advice-for-wannabe-models" websites.
Paparazzi do it all the time, there's no question it's legal.

Photographing without permission

In the United States, anything visible ("in plain view") from a public area can be legally photographed. This includes buildings and facilities, people, signage, notices and images. It is not uncommon for security personnel to use intimidation or other tactics to attempt to stop the photographer from photographing their facilities (trying to prevent, e.g., industrial espionage); however, there is no legal precedent to prevent the photographer so long as the image being photographed is in plain view from a public area. <1> The case is basically the same in the UK, however the Home Secretary has stated that the police can "restrict or monitor photography in certain circumstances". <2>

In recent years, some building owners have claimed a copyright on the appearance of their building; such landmarks as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Pittsburgh's PPG Place, etc. United States copyright law, however, explicitly exempts the appearance of standing buildings from copyright protection. See United States Code, <3>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography#Legal_considerations

[wtmusic]

15. Whether they can photograph it is not at issue

it's whether they can profit from the use of the photograph, and they clearly are.

[Xithras]

16. No, it comes down to what many call the "value rule"

If you're sitting at a curbside cafe and I shoot a photo of you, sell the photo, and make millions, you CAN sue me because YOUR specific presence brought value to the image. I would need a model release.

If I shoot a photo of a crowd where you and 50 other people are plainly visible, and make millions, you CANNOT sue be because YOUR specific presence brought no additional value to the image. I wasn't shooting YOU, I was shooting the CROWD. You could have been swapped for any other person without devaluing the final product.

Generally speaking, this is how judges decide these sorts of suits. In Google's case, the value of the service lays in the entirety of its collection, and your specific house doesn't add any value to it. They don't need a release.

Google has agreed to blur people, even though they don't legally need to, as a service to the community. They will not blur your home however. Nor do they need to.

Trust me, Google hired some of the best lawyers money can buy and bulletproofed this thing before ever taking it public. It is perfectly legal for them to publish photos of your home taken from the public right of way.

[wtmusic]

18. No, it comes down to what "many" call inherent public interest vs.

the right to privacy.

"Fifteen years later, in the case Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Company, a Georgia court was the first to rule on the balance between the right to privacy over freedom of the press, when it found that Mr. Pavesich had been wronged by the appearance of an unauthorized advertisement in which his photograph appeared. The court at that time ruled that commercial usage did not have the same press protections as other forms of use.

Earlier, in 1893, the case Corliss v. Walker had set the related precedent that non-commercial use, in this case an unauthorized biography, was indeed an example where press freedom's inherent public interest could not be overruled by the right to privacy. These two cases along with the aforementioned "The Right to Privacy" have become the basis for almost all US law with respect to the balance between freedom of expression and individual privacy.

In 2006, a New York trial court issued a ruling in a case involving Philip-Lorca diCorcia, who had set up elaborate strobe rigs on a New York City street corner and had photographed people walking down the street, including Emo Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew who objected on religious grounds to diCorcia's publishing in an artistic exhibition a photograph taken of him without his permission. The photo's subject argued that his privacy and religious rights had been violated by both the taking and publishing of the photograph of him. The judge dismissed the lawsuit, finding that the photograph taken of Nussenzweig on a street is art - not commerce - and therefore is protected by the First Amendment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography

The jury is still out on this. Is the "inherent public interest" of viewing the front of my house worth more than my right to privacy?

[Xithras]

19. You're confusing issues. Buildings have no right to privacy.

Individuals may, in a few circumstances, be granted a legal right to privacy while in a public place, but no such protections have EVER been extended to a structure. Your personal right of privacy does not extend to any building you own. This battle has been fought in court more than once, and the building owners never win. The most recent big one was a lawsuit filed by Barbara Streisand against the California Coastal Commission for posting photos of the entirety of the California coastline on their website. Those photos included high resolution imagery of her home. The result? Her case was summarily tossed...you cannot claim a "right to privacy" for any structure that is clearly visible from the public right of way.

If you don't want a building to be viewed or photographed by the public, plant a row of hedges along the road.

[wtmusic]

20. When photographs of buildings are used for commercial purposes

it is unlawful to use them without the owner's permission in many circumstances. Even when visible from the street.

Educate yourself, then get back to me (with links, if you don't mind). I'd love to trust you, but I don't know you and there's so much bullshit on the internets. :D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography

onedit: A case in Pittsburgh of a couple suing Google for Street View is pending. Google has removed the photo of their house, which might give you an idea of how confident Google is in their "bulletproof" case.

[Ian David]

7. Here...

[Selatius]

8. Hell, it doesn't matter. I've seen my house on Google Maps satellite photos for yrs now. nt

[global1]

9. Satellite Photos Are One Thing - But Streetview Is Just Downright Creepy......nt

[Fla Dem]

12. Street view captured a view of my brother walking from his car into his house...lol. Forever

preserved on the internets.