6 ms·

I'm sorry, I find it grossly naive that you believe a photograph taken from beyond the legislated privacy fence height in most jurisdictions to be not unreasona

I'm sorry, I find it grossly naive that you believe a photograph taken from beyond the legislated privacy fence height in most jurisdictions to be not unreasonable. Of course people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy from 3 meters tall, they have a reasonable expectation that people will respect the spirit of the law and not be a raging moron and place a camera at that height. I do know that in many jurisdictions, probably including Germany, that it is completely 100% illegal to profit from your photography of another person without their written consent. Given that Google photographed several of my friends, didn't get them to sign a released and is making a profit off of its unconsented photography it is violating the law. So, just for clarification. Google is violating the law in many jurisdictions. I'm unsure about Germany, but I know they are in the UK and Canada even though no charges have been brought. Perhaps because Google isn't specifically trying to make a profit off of the personal images they have taken, but under the letter of the law they are completely violating it at the moment. This is perhaps why they are working on software to remove people from their photographs, because they already know they're breaking the law.

ugh 16y ago
It’s perfectly legal to profit from photos which happen to have people in them without any consent, written or otherwise. And I damn well hope that it stays that way.
- cschwarm 16y ago
  Nope: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild
  - ugh 16y ago
    Sigh. Doesn’t apply.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Nestle lost a $15m suit because it forgot a consent form for a model. A girl from Africa settled a case for an undisclosed amount from a photo taken in Africa, in the LA courts because her image was used for advertising without her consent, this happened over a decade later IIRC when she'd moved to the US and was in the process of becoming a model. You, in general, don't have to have consent to take a photograph of a persons property, because property cannot be defamed in any way. However, making money off of a photograph of someone else without their consent opens you up to a whole host of civil suits that by tort law has almost always been a loser for the photographer. Not to mention the automated nature of Street View has let a way too many images of semi-naked/naked photos of people onto the internet without their consent, including one of a child, which should never have gotten online to begin with, but legally speaking should never have been photographed to begin with, but we're talking civil violation of the law here and not criminal so I won't go onto this.

ugh 16y ago

It’s perfectly legal to profit from photos which happen to have people in them without any consent, written or otherwise. And I damn well hope that it stays that way.

cschwarm 16y ago
Nope: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild
- ugh 16y ago
  Sigh. Doesn’t apply.
electromagnetic 16y ago
Nestle lost a $15m suit because it forgot a consent form for a model. A girl from Africa settled a case for an undisclosed amount from a photo taken in Africa, in the LA courts because her image was used for advertising without her consent, this happened over a decade later IIRC when she'd moved to the US and was in the process of becoming a model. You, in general, don't have to have consent to take a photograph of a persons property, because property cannot be defamed in any way. However, making money off of a photograph of someone else without their consent opens you up to a whole host of civil suits that by tort law has almost always been a loser for the photographer. Not to mention the automated nature of Street View has let a way too many images of semi-naked/naked photos of people onto the internet without their consent, including one of a child, which should never have gotten online to begin with, but legally speaking should never have been photographed to begin with, but we're talking civil violation of the law here and not criminal so I won't go onto this.