Isn't Google Street View AWESOME?!

The use of an example 'borrowed' from Google may (!) perhaps be seen as 'fair use' (an abomination, that. But that's another matter), but what you propose is something else.<br>'Mining' Google's image store for use as raw material is most definitely illegal. Your proposal to do so is indeed a transgression. It is rather outrageous.<br>Pointing that out - to a fellow image maker, who apparently doesn't like it when his material is used the way he proposes to use the material of someone else - is not <i>"male</i> [or any other] <i> hysteria"</i>, Landrum.<br><br><br>What purpose, Landrum?<br>To see if you would like it when, what you propose to do to others, is done to you.<br><br>And Landrum: you did not get (!) permission before you did what you should have to get permission for. That is a transgression, as simple as driving a car before obtaining a driver's license is. "But officer, you can't fine me for driving without a license, because i was planning to get a license one day soon, perhaps!"

<blockquote>

<p>The use of an example 'borrowed' from Google may (!) perhaps be seen as 'fair use' (an abomination, that. But that's another matter), but what you propose is something else.<br />'Mining' Google's image store for use as raw material is most definitely illegal. Your proposal to do so is indeed a transgression. It is rather outrageous.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You're getting hysterical again, Q.G. I have clearly stated above that the purpose is to get permission from Google on the part of site management:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder if we as individuals or the PN administration could write Google and get permission for this sort of thing on this site. There are some interesting shots out there, and Google really might not mind--provided that we give attribution.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That Hassy acquisition syndrome seems to be softening your brain, Q,G. You know that citing one line out of context is a fallacious way of proceeding, and yet you did it anyway.</p>

<p>If the PN site management were to ask permission of Google and not get it, well, then, that would be that. If, on the other hand, Google were to offer some kind of qualified agreement, that might be something that would interest a certain number of Photo.net members--and even more possible prospective users, who might really enjoy "rummaging" through Google Street View shots to see what they could find--but only with Google's permission, as I have said.</p>

<p>One never knows until one tries, where permissions are concerned. In any case, I have certainly suggested nothing illegal: data mining of a limited sort, for certain purposes, WITH PERMISSION, is not going to be interpreted as a violation of the law in ANY court in the land.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Nice display of hysteria you put on there, Landrum. ;-)

<p>No, Q.G,<em> here</em> is a nice display of hysteria:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And Landrum: you did not get (!) permission before you did what you should have to get permission for. That is a transgression, as simple as driving a car before obtaining a driver's license is. "But officer, you can't fine me for driving without a license, because i was planning to get a license one day soon, perhaps!"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You had already said that "fair use" was legal, but now you have flipped back again in evaluating my motive and impact for posting one small picture for exemplary purposes and for the promotion of an idea. Which is it, Q.G.? Fair use or not. I say that it is, and Google has suffered no damage from my suggestion. If Google wants to sue me, it may do so, as I said before.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Landrum, calm down!<br>I haven't said that fair use was legal. I said that <i>"The use of an example 'borrowed' from Google may (!) perhaps be seen as 'fair use' (an abomination, that. But that's another matter)"</i> See the enormous difference?<br><br>And is it fair use? You now claim it is, yet you asked whether <i>"there </i>[is]<i> a lawyer in the house?"</i> and said that you <i>"hope that this is not illegal"</i> and posted an upper case disclaimer. The moderator here said it is a violation of Google's Terms of Use and removed the violation from PN. So <i>"which is it?"</i>, Landrum? ;-)<br>You drove your car without a license, claiming that since you were proposing to get a license, it would be o.k. to do so. That's what the stuff you quote is about, and that's what it is.<br><br>But that's the legal side of it. And as someone in this thread said that <i>"Behind the legal questions is the question as to why I would care"</i>. Which is much more interesting.<br>And i haven't changed my mind about it being <i>"an exercise aimed at promoting both creative and physical laziness"</i>.

<blockquote>

<p>I haven't said that fair use was legal</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don't have to, Q.G. That is part of the definition of "fair use."</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use</a></p>

<p>I have never been concerned over the legality of my posting for exemplary purposes for the sake of conveying an idea: that is clearly fair use. Whether Google would approve the larger practice on the site is where the legality issue kicks in.</p>

<p>Copy the thread and send it to Google if you want to get a definitive answer.</p>

<p>Now go take a Valium. I have been dealing with fair use issues for decades.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>For what it's worth, when I first thought about this idea of using Google Street View to make other derivative pictures, I was actually thinking about its educational potential for children--especially those who do not own a camera or know how to use one. "Driving along" using Google Street View and taking the occasional "snapshot" using screen shots could teach navigation skills, geography, and much else in addition to some basics about photography.</p>

<p>I still think that the educational potential is enormous, but what later struck me as I "drove around" using Google Street View was how refreshing and beautiful many of the shots really were, even with that wide telephoto effect.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have never been concerned over the legality of my posting for exemplary purposes for the sake of conveying an idea: that is clearly fair use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's worth noting that "fair use" is defined by the courts, not the user.</p>

<p>Lannie, silly little person, Google is entitled to YOUR photos. You are not entitled to THEIRS. To wit:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, I thought that that was from PN's TOU!</p>

<p>Thanks for your input, Jeff:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's worth noting that "fair use" is defined by the courts, not the user.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think (but am not sure, Jeff) that it is defined by the law and adjudged in particular cases (for possible violation) in courts of law.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I am <a id="itxthook1" href="/casual-conversations-forum/00bjqx?start=20" rel="nofollow">talking<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/lb_icon1.png" alt="" /></a> about the various arrows and other symbols that mar the photos, but which are visible on screen captures because they are typically navigational devices when using street view.<br /> You might think of them, John H., as Google "metadata.""</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />I think of them as what they are, navigational aids that the owner wanted to be part of the image, not metadata that is completely unrelated and irrelevant.</p>

<p>Sorry, John H. I was just joking around a bit there on the "metadata" brouhaha.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Um, does all this mean that, if Google drives by and takes a picture of <em><strong>MY</strong></em> house, I have to get <em><strong>their</strong></em> permission to use it?</p>

<p><a href="https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-beta&q=salisbury,+nc&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8853f2d725a9946b:0x9636c83ae46913cb,Salisbury,+NC&gl=us&ei=yzS7UZPnG9ez4AOP54GoDA&ved=0CJ8BELYD">https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-beta&q=salisbury,+nc&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8853f2d725a9946b:0x9636c83ae46913cb,Salisbury,+NC&gl=us&ei=yzS7UZPnG9ez4AOP54GoDA&ved=0CJ8BELYD</a></p>

<p>No, you can't tell which house is mine, you TERRORISTS!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>The issues raised in the discussions here of fair use, running around getting permissions, one 'borrowed' use being legit while the other somehow not ect. ect. illustrates various headaches a site can avoid when it requires posted user content to belong to the user. Ironic that a thread, intended by its poster to promote allowance of other's content, makes a case for not allowing it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Um, does all this mean that, if Google drives by and takes a picture of <em><strong>MY</strong></em> house, I have to get <em><strong>their</strong></em> permission to use it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely!</p>

<p>The real coup, Lannie, is to get inside info as to when the Google vehicle is going to come rolling through your neighborhood, and then to put up a big banner in your front yard that says, "Google is evil!" That would be the ultimate photo-bomb! :-)</p>

<p>Actually, the Google Street Shot of my mother-in-law carrying her watering pail out to a flower bed near the street in Arlingston, Virginia was a pretty big bomb for me, Sarah.</p>

<p>It was a very nice shot of her--you could clearly see that it was her, along with her STREET ADDRESS! (Privacy issues, anyone?)</p>

<p>They have since replaced it with an updated version, but there was no need: Google is invulnerable. It's got Obama and the National Security Agency on it's side!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Another way to have fun: Pose the rhetorical question, "Is Google evil?" Plaster that question on your vehicle, and follow the Google vehicle around as they collect their photographic data. :-D</p>

<p>Sarah, if I were to post a banner for that danged vehicle, I might say even more--and a BIT MORE STRONGLY!</p>

<p>Actually, though, I am glad that Google undertook the Google Street View project. I use it a lot. Hell, just last week I traveled across New Mexico from Taos to Dalhart, Texas. Just reminiscing on that trip of days long ago. . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Plaster that question on your vehicle, and follow the Google vehicle around as they collect their photographic data. :-D</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And get at least four separate data points on them as you tail them and shoot their picture, Sarah--and then launch that via Twitter:</p>

<p>"I am now tailing the Google photo vehicle through East Harlem."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Um, does all this mean that, if Google drives by and takes a picture of <em><strong>MY</strong></em> house, I have to get <em><strong>their</strong></em> permission to use it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correct. Just as <em>I</em> would need <em>your</em> permission to use an image that <em>you</em> created of <em>my</em> house. If you're the photographer, you have the copyright. That has nothing to do with the subject of the photo. When Google is the photographer, <em>they</em> own the copyright. You can use their images according to the license they grant, or you're infringing. And I'd argue that your use of their material was not (in the way a court would lean) anything like Fair Use.<br>

<br />You're looking to make derivative works, and are hoping for some sort of blanket license for thousands of site members to make thousands more derivative works. Doing that without permission is copyright infringement. And I wouldn't bother pretending that you're <em>really</em> interested in getting PN's management to sweet-talk Google into some sort of freebie licensing model that they won't even <em>begin</em> to provide to thousands of other organizations that have to formally license Google's content. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Um, does all this mean that, if Google drives by and takes a picture of <em><strong>MY</strong></em> house, I have to get <em><strong>their</strong></em> permission to use it?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Since they own the copyright to the image, yes. What's seen in the image is irrelevant.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another way to have fun: Pose the rhetorical question, "Is Google evil?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep, if you want to be a good teacher, ask questions. Thank you, Sarah.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Since they own the copyright to the image, yes. What's seen in the image is irrelevant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let me ponder that for a while, John H. Maybe they can get shots of the "working girls" walking up and down N. Long St. in Salisbury--half in and half out of the cars at times, providing essential services to the patrons of that district.</p>

<p>Matt, that post (to which you responded) was strictly tongue-in-cheek. I know what the law is. I was making fun of it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe they can get shots of the "working girls"<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Google "prostitutes seen in google streetview" and you can get your jollies all day long cleaning up the "metadata" in all those images.<br /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I was making fun of it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which means that your entire post, apparent underlying premises included, despite your getting in something of a huff about it ... was actually some non-serious fun-making from the get-go? That's a relief! Was having trouble reconciling your worldliness with such a seemingly uninformed aspiration in the first place, and now I don't have to. Whew!</p>