Isn't Google Street View AWESOME?!

<p>Well, maybe not always, but I cropped this one down to get rid of the strong wide-angle effect, then resized it back up, after which I softened it with Gaussian blur to hide the resulting pixelation, then sharpened it ever so slightly.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17423861&size=md">http://www.photo.net/photo/17423861&size=md</a></p>

<p>There ought to be some genre called "Google Street Views" if that is not unlawful. (Never mind that some of my images show up on on Google without attribution.)</p>

<p>Anybody else got some good ones to share?</p>

<p>Is there a lawyer in the house? I hope that this is not illegal. <strong><em>THIS POSTING IS FOR EXEMPLARY PURPOSES ONLY.</em></strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Here is the original screenshot, resized.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<b>Moderator's note: Image removed</b><P>

<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>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I think it's explained here, Lannie:<br>

<a href="http://www.google.ca/permissions/geoguidelines.html">http://www.google.ca/permissions/geoguidelines.html</a><br>

<a href="http://maps.google.com/help/terms_maps.html">http://maps.google.com/help/terms_maps.html</a></p>

<p><em>"I wonder if we as individuals or the PN administration could write Google and get permission for this sort of thing on this site."</em><br /><br />Anyone can ask for anything but, if I understand correctly, photo.net already has a policy for posting other's work which makes such an inquiry moot. Namely that "You agree to upload and post only User Content that you have created yourself." Whether 'exemplary' or not.</p>

<p>The operative word being "created". . . ?</p>

<p>With post-processing, the effects could be far different from what Google presents on Street View, even though the images originate there. In addition, Google has opened up a whole new world for us, if the powers that be can find some way to lawfully allow us to tap into it. In addition, the automated nature of Google's pictures indicates to me that no eye toward creativity is being intended by Google--simply documentation.</p>

<p>My getting permission would not supersede site rules, and that is why I put the question in terms of what the PN site might allow--or even promote. I can imagine even a "Google Street View Forum," which would not only give attribution to Google, but publicity as well (as if they needed it).</p>

<p>Here is the URL, in any case:</p>

<p><a href="https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-beta&q=walhalla,+sc&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8858f1eb145f319f:0xaa679203afc039cb,Walhalla,+SC&gl=us&ei=F7G6Uf6qJYG-9gSMxIDACw&ved=0CLoBELYD">https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-beta&q=walhalla,+sc&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x8858f1eb145f319f:0xaa679203afc039cb,Walhalla,+SC&gl=us&ei=F7G6Uf6qJYG-9gSMxIDACw&ved=0CLoBELYD</a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><em>With post-processing, the effects could be far different from what Google presents on Street View, even though the images originate there. In addition, Google has opened up a whole new world for us, if the powers that be can find some way to lawfully allow us to tap into it. In addition, the automated nature of Google's pictures indicates to me that no eye toward creativity is being intended by Google--simply documentation.</em><br /> <br /> <em><br /></em>I can't speak for the site but I'm guessing it doesn't want to be concerned with issues, legal or practical, associated with other's images being posted. I imagine dealing with that would be a nightmare. In this post alone are dubious claims about the imagery being derivative use and documentary photography having less standing, ect. I wouldn't want to decipher an endless stream of rationalizations, like these, as to why posting someone else's images is legal or appropriate and deal with copyright holder complaints and DMCA notices ect...</p>

<p>Google is unique in that its trucks drive all over the country taking pictures of houses, buildings, persons (my mother-in-law carrying a pail of water out to water her flowers in Arlington, VA, for example), etc. Google has thereby created (and continues to create) a database which could be the foundation of another whole genre of "Street Photography."</p>

<p>Now, whether anyone wants to go to the trouble is quite another thing, but there is a lot here that is worth considering, in my opinion. Whether or not Google would want to be cooperative in such a case is also another question.</p>

<p>In any case, if PN were to be interested in pursuing this, it would not necessarily involve "copyright holder complaints" if Google Street View should be seen as falling into a special category--one-time clearance might suffice.</p>

<p>Nothing ventured, nothing gained. From where I sit, it is a possible win-win situation that would not involve that much work if PN wants to pursue it.</p>

<p>In any case, I raise these questions in good faith and urge the PN administration to consider the potential value to the site.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Photo.net's Terms of Use clearly state: "Photo.net includes information, images, photos, commentary, content, opinions and material that our users upload ("User Content"). You agree to upload and post only User Content that you have created yourself."

 

Cropping and applying blur and sharpen filters does not mean that you have created that image.

Landrum, here's a link to one of your original images: http://www.photo.net/photo/5227322

 

Below is a version that I cropped, upsized, blurred, and sharpened. Would you accept the argument that I "created" the image below in any substantive sense? If I sold that image as my own, I very strongly suspect that a court would rule in your favor if you sued me for infringement.<div></div>

"Google has thereby created (and continues to create) a database which could be the foundation of another whole genre of 'Street Photography.'"

 

If people copied other people's portrait photos, did a bit a Photoshop work on them, and then presented them as their creations, would they be inventing a new genre of portraiture? or just a bunch of copyright violations?

<p>Please pass the question upstairs, Mike. There is marketing potential for the site in this, and imaginative entrepreneurs can make further applications from Google's street views available in ways that have yet to be foreseen.</p>

<p>If Photo.net does not seize the opportunity, someone else will--and my guess is that Google will see some publicity value in this as well.</p>

<p>As I said, Google Street View is a special case. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

It is also a violation of Google's Terms of Use. I think you need to offer a more compelling argument for why photo.net should change it's TOU and try to convince Google to change its TOU.

<p>"If people copied other people's portrait photos, did a bit a Photoshop work on them, and then presented them as their creations, would they be inventing a new genre of portraiture? or just a bunch of copyright violations?"</p>

<p>That would depend on Google's interpretation of the law--and of the marketing opportunities.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Behind the legal questions is the question as to why I would care: Google has gathered a lot of "raw" photographic data. Selective cropping, etc., could really bring this data to full fruition as a type of art of sorts--not to say that there is no beauty in Google Street View shots as they appear, but they typically need at least some cleaning up.</p>

<p>As for PN, I was thinking about the prospect for a special "Google Street View Forum," analogous to the camera phone forum. Worth doing? Perhaps not, but perhaps worth considering.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Why does your link provide us with one google street view shot, and 1137 other images from your own portfolio? I was just clicking away there trying to figure out how on earth the other shots could have come from google until I saw the little headers under the images.</p>

<p>The one google street view you have is just that. Google's. It was taken w/ their equipment and their operators in those stupid little cars. Any amount of editing doesn't change that, to my mind anyway.</p>

If you want to get nice pictures from whatever it is you can see on or from the street, why don't you go out yourself, Landrum?<br>Or else, why stop at what Google put up on the web through Streetview? Why would you not delve into the zillions of images you can turn up using Google images? Or whatever else you can find on the world wide web?<br><br>Strikes me as an exercise aimed at promoting both ceative and physical laziness.<br>And one that promotes illegal behaviour to boot.<br>Not just a bad idea. But one that is already transgressing into the criminal.

<p>streetview is very useful as it gives you much more information that even the most detailed verbal description.<br>

Not so Google Latitude I fear, it seems to be getting more and more inaccurate. Knowing where someone is to the nearest 10 miles or so (in default mode) really isn't much use</p>

<p>... though it could be fun...<br /><br /><strong><em>THIS POSTING IS FOR EXEMPLARY PURPOSES ONLY</em></strong><br /><br /><a href="/photo/16828047"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17424109-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="590" /></a><br /><br />Nah... maybe not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Google has gathered a lot of "raw" photographic <a id="itxthook4" href="/casual-conversations-forum/00bjqx?start=10" rel="nofollow">data<img id="itxthook4icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>. Selective cropping, etc., could really bring this data to full fruition as a type of art of sorts--not to say that there is no beauty in Google Street View shots as they appear, but they typically need at least some cleaning up."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />So what? All sorts of photographers have images of places that amount to "data" or a historical portrayal of places that can be cleaned up to look better. This is nothing unique. Google Streets just happens to to a lot of them. <br /><br /></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Strikes me as an exercise aimed at promoting both ceative and physical laziness.<br />And one that promotes illegal behaviour to boot.<br />Not just a bad idea. But one that is already transgressing into the criminal.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it was not transgressing. It was only posted as a proposal for further action by the site, with Google's permission.</p>

<p>Above all, Q.G. it was not malicious, as your deliberate mangling of the shot of my grandson clearly was--and was intended to be. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All sorts of photographers have images of places that amount to "data" or a historical portrayal of places that can be cleaned up to look better.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am talking 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.</p>

<p>You might think of them, John H., as Google "metadata."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Come, come, Landrum.<br>My "mangling" wasn't malicious. Nor intended to be. It was merely an example of what you propose: use what others produce as raw material. Bring that, which would otherwise lay wasted, <i>"to full fruition as a type of art of sorts"</i>.<br>I <i>"created"</i> something new, wouldn't you say? (Which - i'll readily admit - is not much. Though in my humble opinion quite an improvement over the raw material it was sculpted out of. Now that's borderline malicious, were it not in jest. ;-) )<br><br>By the way: proposing to break the law, suggesting that what is and is not allowed is a matter of interpretation anyway, <i>is</i> a transgression.<br><br>I'll remove my <i>"creation"</i> in a while. When it has served its purpose.<br>Which it will have if and when you feel there's something not right using other people's material as free for all raw material.

<blockquote>

<p>Why does your link provide us with one google street view shot, and 1137 other images from your own portfolio? I was just clicking away there trying to figure out how on earth the other shots could have come from google until I saw the little headers under the images.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, you know full well, Steve, that the link that I provided is to a singles photo folder with a handful of my other photos, four of which were made by me in the same little town in South Carolina. One may keep linking to my other folders and thus to my posted 1137 images, but the link itself only goes to a small sample of other photos. I put the Google shot in my Singles folder because it had to go somewhere, and that one was available and already contained the four images made in that small town last October. I stumbled onto the idea of using the street shots with permission when I was trying to track down exactly where the shots were made. (Usually I know, but I was navigating a strange town under overcast skies.)</p>

<p>I chose one Google photo because one was sufficient as an example. When compared with the original view (as originally posted before it was deleted by the moderator), it clearly showed how much cropping was typically necessary to get rid of Google's "metadata."</p>

<p>This entire idea was founded in good will, and as a suggestion for further thought and consideration. I have never suggested pirating of Google data without permission or for pecuniary purposes.</p>

<p>Nor was the use of one small Google photo, with attribution, either criminal or a "transgression," as implied by Q.G. The purpose of posting that one small image was suggestion and promotion of an idea, and clearly falls under fair use and the TOU of Google. Since I publish, I know what fair use entails where the promotion of an idea is concerned.</p>

<p>So turn me in to Google and see what happens. Hell, for that matter, turn me in to the NSA. I won't be fleeing to Hong Kong over this one.</p>

<p>Alas, though Mike Dixon was only doing his job, some of you guys need to take your Midol. We've got enough male hysterics around these days.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>By the way: proposing to break the law, suggesting that what is and is not allowed is a matter of interpretation anyway, <em>is</em> a transgression.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suggested that the site get permission from Google. That is <em>in no way</em> a violation of the law, Q.G., nor is it a suggestion that others violate the law until the permission might be granted to the site--the only practicable way that this suggestion could proceed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'll remove my creation in a while. When it has served its purpose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What purpose would that be, Q.G.? The purpose of my posting was to convey a sincere and constructive idea: that is, get collective permission for us as users of PN to mine the data here for artistic purposes. That would hardly interfere with Google's own documentary project, which I always liked as an idea--and still do. I am simply suggesting that such data might have other possible uses--which could be explored with Google's permission after communication with Google on the part of PN site management. That was clearly the entire purpose of my original suggestion--not law-breaking.</p>

<p>I repeat, in case anyone missed it, that my purpose was solely as I stated above, shown again here in boldface in case you missed it: " <strong>The purpose of posting that one small image was suggestion and promotion of an idea, and clearly falls under fair use and the TOU of Google. Since I publish, I know what fair use entails where the promotion of an idea is concerned."</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

If Google thinks otherwise and wishes to sue or prosecute me, they may try. <strong> <br /></strong></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>