Google in trouble over public photos


EnigmaPhoto 14 487 United Kingdom
4 Jul 2008 10:36AM
I'm a bit confused on this story from the BBC website.

Google faces Street View 'Block'

In particular this paragraph has got me wondering


Quote:In the US it is legal to take photos of people on public streets. But Mr Davies believes that because Street View is being used for commercial ends anyone in the UK who appears in the photo needs to grant his or her consent.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was completely legal to take shots in the public arena and use these shots for commercial gain without their permission.

Seems a little excessive.

Anyone got a better understanding of this?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Morpyre Plus
15 1.6k 8 Wales
4 Jul 2008 10:39AM
candid street photography is frowned upon but didn't slow the likes of henri cartier bresson from rising to the upper echelon of the photography world. he just covered his leica 35mm with black tape to make it more stealthy while out and about.
culturedcanvas 14 4.7k 59 United Kingdom
4 Jul 2008 10:42AM
Legally photos can be used for editorial but not for advertising ... thats a very simplistic definition ubt I can't be arsed to write more Wink
EnigmaPhoto 14 487 United Kingdom
4 Jul 2008 10:43AM
I know people don't like to have photos taken in the street... lol

I'm more worried about the implication for the photographer.

Let's say I was in a street in London taking a photo of, let's say, Oxford Street and there were people walking around. Now if I put that photo into a stock library and I sold a bunch of copies, would I be in trouble for not getting permission from the people in the street?

I really don't think that the quoted paragraph is correct.
BubbaG2000 12 767 1
4 Jul 2008 10:45AM
Are you even allowed to take shots of individuals in public for financial gain without their consent?
EnigmaPhoto 14 487 United Kingdom
4 Jul 2008 10:46AM

Quote:Are you even allowed to take shots of individuals in public for financial gain without their consent?


Well that's the question... Smile
culturedcanvas 14 4.7k 59 United Kingdom
4 Jul 2008 10:48AM
The photo of oxford street could be used for editorial but not for advertising without a model release for every person who is 'identifiable' in the shot ...
EnigmaPhoto 14 487 United Kingdom
4 Jul 2008 10:51AM
OK, we have the editorial bit clear.

Let's put it another way. The paragraph I quoted mentioned 'commercial gain'. What if you sold the photo and it was agreed it wasn't going to be used for editorial?

Are you still in the clear or isn't that allowed?
Morpyre Plus
15 1.6k 8 Wales
4 Jul 2008 10:52AM
i would have thought it depends on the intention of the subject.

if that person is to be the centre point focus of your photo than i would think you should atleast approach them and describe your commercial financial intentions for the image and handover something like a business card with your contact details.

if you are capturing something like a landmark in central london and you happen to get tourists in the photo than there is less reason to approach them because it would probably be a nightmare trying to speak to all of them. besides in the published place that image will be there will be nothing to identify those people so they would just be considered nameless and thus not fall under any financial laws regarding payment.
Krakman 13 3.6k Scotland
4 Jul 2008 10:53AM
This is not an issue about model release for advertising etc. It's about the Data Protection Act. There was a thread about it here .
Henchard 15 2.7k 1 United Kingdom
4 Jul 2008 10:55AM
Start here for some info.

The article linked to has nothing to do with photography but is about data protection issues.
EnigmaPhoto 14 487 United Kingdom
4 Jul 2008 10:57AM
Good info from everyone. I'm going to digest all of this.

I'm glad I asked now. Thanks all.
EnigmaPhoto 14 487 United Kingdom
4 Jul 2008 11:08AM
Hmmm... I've had an initial read (I'm gonna take it all in better later today) but I still can't see where it is illegal to sell photos taken from public places of people in the street, unless of course it is used in advertising.

Going back to the original post, I also can't see how Google can be stopped using photos, as they clearly aren't advertising on their Street View application




(I have a feeling I'm missing something major here!!)
Krakman 13 3.6k Scotland
4 Jul 2008 11:10AM
It isn't illegal to sell photos of people taken on the street. In fact strictly speaking it isn't even illegal to use them for advertising (though there are potential problems with doing so).

The Data Protection Act is about storing them on a computer rather than actually taking/selling the photos.
wasper 13 533 1 Ireland
4 Jul 2008 11:12AM

Quote:I'm a bit confused on this story from the BBC website.

Google faces Street View 'Block'

In particular this paragraph has got me wondering

Quote:In the US it is legal to take photos of people on public streets. But Mr Davies believes that because Street View is being used for commercial ends anyone in the UK who appears in the photo needs to grant his or her consent.Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought it was completely legal to take shots in the public arena and use these shots for commercial gain without their permission.

Seems a little excessive.

Anyone got a better understanding of this?



I am begging to wonder if it is fun anymore to be living in the UK?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.