IANAL, but I believe the individual would have to prove that Google's income 
was the result of his likeness being on Google's site, not that his likeness 
just happens to be present when Google makes money. That would be awfully 
hard to prove.

Do you think every magazine reimburses every person who happens to be in a 
street scene that they publish? I don't either.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rolf" <learr@rogers.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclist@mit.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Googel on the streets


> Robert Rolf wrote:
>> Tamas Rudnai wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you view the map od San Francisco or LA with Google Maps then you can
>>> click on [Street View] and if you place the little man on the street map 
>>> you
>>> will see the street view as a 360 degree interactive photo - even of 
>>> clearly
>>> identifiable faces of people and registration plates. Is that legal in 
>>> the
>>> US?
>>>
>>
>> They are in a "PUBLIC" space, so they can have no expectation of 
>> 'privacy'.
>> Anyone can take a picture in a pubic space, and no laws are violated.
>> If there were laws being broken, you can bet celebrities would be suing 
>> the
>> asses off the paparazzi.
>>
>> R
>>
>>
> You are actually partially mistaken in this regard....
>
> In a public space you are normally (there are exceptions) allowed to
> take photographs at will, but you are not allowed to get commercial gain
> from someone else's likeness unless they have signed a release form. So,
> taking photographs is fine, but selling people's images is not. I'm
> searching for some references.....
>
> Here's a good one.
>
> http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html
>
> In Summary, legal or not illegal are sort of blurry (actually, it is not
> about criminal law at all, and only loosely falls in to commercial law),
> but, anyone who's face appears on the map pages may attempt to sue
> Google for part of Google's income that is derived from their likeness.
> Google has most likely just got to blur out that person's face, or
> simply re-take that picture, and they are in the clear without having to
> do anything more, and likely the only thing that it will cost Google is
> legal fees (which will pretty much be nothing because this will all be
> dealt with long before it ever sees a court....). i.e. The way it will
> work is that Joe Blogs will see their face on a map page. They will hire
> a lawyer for $500 bucks, who will pen a long letter to Google saying
> "please pay my client $xx for having his face help Google make money".
> Google will respond with "Ohh, sorry, didn't know his face was in there.
> It's gone now, what next?". And, that will pretty much be the end of it.
> No lawyer will let a client try much more than that because it is pretty
> pointless.
>
> It is about pragmatism... Google can be a whole lot more pragmatic than
> a person who's face appears in an obscure place in a picture....
>
> Rolf
>
>
>
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist