Slashdot Mirror


Google's Street View Meets Resistance In France

Ian Lamont writes "Google has begun to scan the streets of Paris as part of its Street View service, but the company may be hindered from publishing them unedited. The reason? French privacy laws. Google may be forced to blur faces or use low-resolution versions of the photographs. The Embassy of France in the US has a page devoted to French privacy laws, that says the laws are needed to 'avoid infringing the individual's right to privacy and right to his or her picture (photograph or drawing), both of them rights of personality.'"

16 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. Easily contourné by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What exactly is illegal,
    1. taking a picture in France
    or
    2. publishing it in France?

    To avoid (1), take the picture from space.
    To avoid (2), put the servers in the U.S.

    1. Re:Easily contourné by mrbluze · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What exactly is illegal..

      Yeah, it's a cool thing to be able to browse the streets of a city in 3D, but honestly, who wants their faces, car plates, etc. published for all to see? Not everybody. And until it's everybody then we should assume nobody except with express consent.

      It's a matter of common decency, not just law. I hate it when people talk as though the law is the only thing we should pay any attention to.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    2. Re:Easily contourné by xaxa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did you read the UK one?
      There is also a fair possibility that photographs of people may be subject to the Data Protection Act, which controls the âoeprocessingâ of âoepersonal dataâ, that is, data relating to an individual from which the individual can be identiïed. The deïnitions of these terms are complex, but taking a photograph of a recognisable person would appear to ït within them. The Act contains an exception for processing undertaken with a view to publication of any journalistic or artistic material, and much photography will probably be protected by this exception, but obtaining a model release puts the issue beyond doubt.
      So Google would likely do the same in the UK as they're doing in Paris.

      Using a telephoto lens to take a photo of
      someone in a private place, such as their home, without their consent, is probably an invasion of privacy even though the photo is taken from a public place.

      I think taking a photo from the street through a window and putting it on the Internet is an invasion of privacy too, I think it would be easy to argue this in court and win if it came to it.

    3. Re:Easily contourné by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think I'm an egomaniac, but I was thrilled when I saw myself on street view. The excavator I was having unloaded even stopped them from imaging most of the street! I don't know why, but it's exciting.

      I didn't notice the car go by at the time.

    4. Re:Easily contourné by Kijori · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about getting a permit to get authorities to temporarily (say 10 minutes at most) block off certain streets to take pictures of the streets at every location desirable. I can't imagine it would take much longer. Benefits? People who inevitably meander into the pictures most likely want to be in the picture and don't really have much of a right to complain. They were warned (by signs, guards, etc.) and they got in (conversely, egomaniacs might not see it as a bad thing to have their faces on Google Maps). Disadvantages? Possibly slowing business down a bit, but it would be a one time thing and I imagine the benefit to small, relatively undiscovered businesses would be enormous. A small B&B with references on Google Maps would boost sales as I know a lot of people that consult TripAdvisor reviews (supplements that appear to the Google Maps images) to decide where to go during vacation trips or even routine business trips. France has 370,000 km of roads, not counting motorways. Even if you only did this in cities the cost would be enormous and it would inevitable cause huge disruption. To avoid creating massive traffic problems you wouldn't be able to block off nearby streets one after another, the most efficient way, so the process would have to be drawn out over a reasonable period of time. Compare this to the current system - a car drives down the road - and you can see that the cost increase would be huge. Plus the benefit you're espousing - exposure for small businesses - isn't affected by whether the streets are blocked off by guards and signs, so there really is no benefit.
  2. California has a similar law by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    California has a similar law, Civil Code section 3344. This covers "publicity rights". Each person's "publicity right" in recognizable images of themself is by law worth at least $750, if used in any manner related to advertising or selling. If you're famous, the price goes up, to cover "actual damages".

    So if you're in California and recognizable in Google StreetView, you could put in a claim. It's not worth it unless you're a major celebrity.

  3. The online French Yellow Pages has street photos by sureshc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The online French Yellow Pages (http://www.pagesjaunes.fr) has a primitive streetview feature. Most of the pictures appear to be taken early in the morning when there are very few pedestrians, but it's still fairly common to see people in the background.

  4. Re:The whole Street View idea... by Necroman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It can be very useful for finding the final destination in a trip. A friend gave me a link to his new place using StreetView, with the "camera" pointed directly at which house was his. With this, I knew what to look for when I got into the area (as it was near impossible to see the markings on the houses at night.

    StreetView has its purpose, it's really a matter of how follow directions.

    Also, I've been using it for house hunting in the city I live in. I'm able to see what kind of homes are in the different neighborhoods around town without driving all over the place. Once I find some neighborhoods that I like I drive there myself just to get a feel for the area in person.

    --
    Its not what it is, its something else.
  5. Re:Photography in France by Cochonou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, people's rights to their image do not only exist in France.
    Don't you remember the Australian Virgin mobile fiasco ? They had taken pictures from Flickr under the Creative Common license for their advertising campaign. So far, so good. However, they did not have the consent of the people on the pictures.
    Now, the family of the girl on the picture got a little wild and sued both Virgin and Creative Commons. The latter case has been dropped, but I believe the former is still ongoing.

  6. Re:Photography in France by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In most countries, it is legal to take and sell photos of people without their consent in a public place - otherwise it would be practically impossible to take pictures anywhere. What you're not allowed to do is to sell them for use in advertising, to endorse products or services etc. without the consent of the people involved (model release).

    I'm not aware of the specific laws in France, it just seems to me that these picture agencies would have thoroughly investigated that before selling pictures of people taken in France. It seems particularly absurd to pic on google in this case, given all the other examples of public photography available. However the rules as quoted in the summary would outlaw tourists taking any pictures too - that seems unlikely in the extreme.

    Since the google pics are not used to advertise a product or service (the people are in fact really incidental), they should be safe.

    The case you're talking about took and used a photo for advertising, to endorse a product, and hence was illegal.

  7. Re:"Providing those details would be inappropriate by tmk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think the article I mentioned is the best or most relevant report on that topic, but it is interesting to test the threshold of privacy. In fact it is very easy to connect information about a person with the picture from Google street map. E.g. in Germany you need to provide proper contact information on professional web site, including postal addresses. Install the right Firefox Plugin and you could see the picture of the house in Google maps.

  8. Don't trust that by DisSys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, I do live in Paris, and I can tell you this law is not really enforced unless you explicitly ask for it. Several times, photographers (*professional* ones I mean) tried to take a photograph of my baby girl (a cute and smiling one, but I'm not neutral on that topic! ;-), without asking for authorization, of course. I had to ask them to stop that, which usually led to a verbal argument. Google has been caught red-handed. Good. Next time they will hide their cameras and nobody will notice, except for the few usual whistleblowers.

  9. Re:The whole Street View idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sometimes when I had to go someplace I wasn't familiar with, I'd drive through the day, week before, so I would be on time. Now I've used street view to get a look at the address, and just have an idea of what landmarks to look for. I suspect if everyone did something similar we would probably be able to see a small decline in accident rates as people would be more focused on driving rather than looking at building numbers. Not to mention gas prices being what they are and time being what it's always been, it's just convienent. I would think using street view for voyeurism is a little unnecessarily time intensive. But that's not something I'd be inclined to bother with anyway.

  10. that may not mean what you think by nguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The law is the law, and Google need to respect the local laws.

    Yes, but that may not mean what you think it means.

    French laws apparently are restrictions on publishing, not taking, pictures. So, Google can legally take those pictures, and legally take them out of French jurisdiction. And since they are not subject to French laws in the US, they can publish them in the US unedited. Google would seem to be in full compliance with all local laws at all times.

    They do it in China, with their censored Google, so I can't imagine them putting up too much of a fight against French privacy laws.

    Yes, and by that analogy, Google can censor French content for French viewers going to French Google servers, and everybody else can presumably see the uncensored images.

    Of course, I expect Google to back down on this and censor French pictures globally, but I don't think they have any particular legal obligation to do that.

  11. Compare vs. Britain ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What really amazes me is that yesterday people were arguing that people on a public street had no right to expect privacy from cameras.

    Before people jump all over me about the diffences, yes, I realize that this is apples-to-oranges. There are lots of differences in how and why the laws are written, and a big difference between law enforcement cameras (presumably not for public distribution or corporate profit), and Google cameras, etc etc etc.

    What surprises me is that two societies with such close physical, economic, historic (+/- ad infinitum) ties have such radically different expectations of control over personal images taken in public.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  12. Re:Not resistance, but law! by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yes, and current French law would actually have made it difficult - if not impossible - for French photographers such as Cartier-Bresson to practice their art, no? What about Doisneau and Ronis? Boubet? It seems like an entire period of French public life is going to be recorded but not published or displayed the way much of the 20th century was - due to fear of lawsuits. There are limits in the US, but generally anything that is taken in public, and is for editorial purposes (including artistic) is legal - commercial use (like advertising) requires a release. Sure, France can pass any law - but it's unfortunate that something like French street photography - which has had a particularly lyric quality to it - should be limited now. I would have enjoyed seeing what that tradition, reinvented with today's technology, might've been able to show. Bringing that humanist tradition to bear on the spontaneous moments of everyday public life would be especially welcome in today's world. I guess future generations will have to settle for mass-media portrayals of today's life, and news coverage of spectacle and tragedy. That's ok, if it's actually what the people of France want. It seems like something is being lost, though.