Google's Street View launched in the US last May, but expanding the service to Europe is proving to be a bit more difficult for Google. The Google Maps blog today announced the release of Street View for the route of the Tour de France, but privacy activists in England are anything but amused by the prospect of Google starting to photograph the streets of London.
England's Privacy International doesn't trust in Google's ability to automatically blur faces. While in the US, photographing people in the street is absolutely legal without the need to ask for consent, in the UK, anyone who appears in a photo that is used commercially has to grant consent. Google is rumored to have started taking pictures in the UK this week.
However, Google's experiment with its face blurring technology in New York shows that they are quite capable of employing this technology. Google already blurs all license plate numbers in Street View as well.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4360
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all Read/WriteWeb posts
There are already some privacy invasiosn rolling in from Google Street View France:
http://streetviewgallery.corank.com
Posted by: Mapper99 | July 4, 2008 12:23 PM
in the UK, anyone who appears in a photo that is used commercially has to grant consent
That's flat out wrong. From the "UK Photographers Rights" PDF -
The lack of any coherent law of privacy in the UK
means that photographers are not only free to take
photographs of people in public places, but they
can use those photos as they wish, including for
commercial gain.
That Photographer Rights guide was written by "Linda Macpherson LL.B, Dip.L.P., LL.M, who is a lecturer in law at Heriot Watt University, with particular experience in Information Technology Law, Intellectual Property Law and Media Law."
Posted by: Scot | July 4, 2008 12:28 PM
"in the UK, anyone who appears in a photo that is used commercially has to grant consent."
Someone should tell the BBC and all the other media players in the UK as well. Every day newspapers print photos showing the faces of passers-by and TV shows the faces of the public at sports events, on the news etc.
Why is nobody shouting privacy at them?
Posted by: Keir Clarke | July 4, 2008 1:08 PM
Mr Davies of Privacy International (who made the dubious comments about the need for consent for the commercial use of images) also has a belief about the Information Commissioner's powers that can best be described as being grounded in fantasy -
"Mr Davies said it would write to the Information Commissioner seeking a suspension of the service in the UK.
I take it Mr Davies hasn't visited the Information Commissioner's website to see what it is they actually do. They don't go around stopping services. Assuming they decided to look at Streetview (which is far from certain) and then found something objectionable (which is very uncertain) they would do their best to work with Google to bring the service into line with the law.
Posted by: Scot | July 4, 2008 1:10 PM
So about 4 million live video surveillance cameras in the UK are fine, but don't take any photographs.
I must be missing something.
Posted by: malachi | July 4, 2008 1:12 PM
Scot - The way I interpreted this was that the press is treated differently in this context (I think I have mostly read about this in the context of paparazzi stalking celebrities).
Also , the Telegraph has some more depth in its reporting than the original BBC piece: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2008/04/03/dlgoogle103.xml
Posted by: Frederic Lardinois | July 4, 2008 2:33 PM
Commercial use (as in potentially endorsing a product) and editorial use are not the same thing. If you read legal cases brought by celebrities against magazines, the magazine usually uses the defence that it was "in the public interest" that the photos could be shown. That defence could not be used if you snapped someone in the street, then made up an advert from the photo suggesting they used or recommended a particular product. I'm not saying that it is "illegal" per se, just that you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court.
Posted by: hockeyshooter | July 6, 2008 5:35 AM
Cheers to the UK laws. Privacy 1 Google 0.
Posted by: Fred | July 7, 2008 2:29 AM
Keir,
The CCTV Cameras are subtly different. There is a requirement in UK law to put up a notice explaining that you are operating CCTV, and give the name, address and telephone number of the "data controller."
Just driving around and taking photos is OK for personal use, and when it is "in the public interest", but NOT for commercial use unless a "public interest" case can be made before a court.
Scot,
In the UK, you have a legal right to request any information stored about yourself, including pictures. The obligation is then on the COMPANY HOLDING THE INFORMATION to dig it out, and the maximum they may charge for you doing so is £10, irrespective of how much time it takes.
The Information Commissioner has, as I understand things, interpreted this to mean "including pictures." Therefore, ANY UK citizen can send Google a tenner, and ask for copies of all the pictures they have... and it's up to Google to provide them all :-) This is one reason most CCTV pictures are only held for a limited period of time - so that, in the event of an issue, there's not much to check!
If a company fails to do so on a consistent basis, then the Information Commissioner can bring legal action up to and including requesting the courts to shut down companies.
Posted by: Mark Harrison | July 7, 2008 6:16 AM
elements of the uk data protection act are now in play and depending on the circumstances involved, it can be illegal to print photos without permission,
Posted by: hughmac | July 7, 2008 11:31 AM
Street View is a good idea!!! I'd recommend you to look through another resource. My favourite is Street View service on http://streetview.fizber.com/
Posted by: Otto Studen | July 9, 2008 6:36 AM