| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/01/2008 08:41:34 PM · #1 |
In what could be a dangerous precedent a privately owned town has denied Google the right/permission to photograph their streets and home-fronts.
"The city of 4,500 residents has demanded that Google Maps remove images of North Oaks homes from the website's Street View feature, where any Internet user can glimpse a home from the nearest road."
"North Oaks' unique situation, in which the roads are privately owned by the residents and the city enforces a trespassing ordinance, may have made it the first city in the country to request that the online search engine remove images from Google Maps."
See the Full Story here.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2008 08:42:33 PM · #2 |
| This concerns me a bit because if a town can be privately owned yet an actual town, can other towns follow suit to get special rights that normally do not cover towns. |
|
|
|
06/01/2008 08:46:38 PM · #3 |
I don't think Canada allows Google's "street view" maps to be published either.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2008 08:56:02 PM · #4 |
I don't see it as special rights. And I certainly don't see a dangerous precedent.
At least in the US, owners of private property can forbid 3rd party photography on their property. I should know; I've been escorted off private property while trying to take photos without permission. And I've been denied permission to photograph on private property.
If the streets are privately owned, then the owners are clearly within their rights to forbid photography ... same as in your own home or apartment.
Furthermore, since Google is a for-profit business, and the photos are being used to help Google make money, they might need a property release (similar to a model release) to use the photos on their commercial site.
I assume they did not have permission in advance to photograph, and did not obtain permission to display the photos on their for-profit commercial site.
The courts may have to sort it out, but to me it seems clear Google must remove the photos.
Obviously, it is completely different when Google photographs from public streets. So if a precedent is being set, it would only apply to other private roads and streets.
Just my point of view.
Message edited by author 2008-06-01 20:56:45. |
|
|
|
06/01/2008 09:01:09 PM · #5 |
| The dangerous precedent I was referring to was the private ownership of roads and towns. Which can dramatically change the rights and laws covering that area. |
|
|
|
06/01/2008 09:13:50 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by togtog:
The dangerous precedent I was referring to was the private ownership of roads and towns. Which can dramatically change the rights and laws covering that area. |
Really?
It's dangerous for a road to be privately owned? How so? Since when?
Toll roads and bridges are privately owned and they've been around for centuries.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2008 09:16:58 PM · #7 |
Aren't these aerial photographs? If so, and the public can legally fly over the place, then I don't see how they can stop them from taking photos.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2008 09:22:13 PM · #8 |
Actually the photographs are taken at ground view using a vehicle that drives through the area. Check it out - it is pretty cool - and a bit creepy - at the same time...
Originally posted by Mick:
Aren't these aerial photographs? If so, and the public can legally fly over the place, then I don't see how they can stop them from taking photos. |
|
|
|
|
06/01/2008 09:30:01 PM · #9 |
That is a single road, I believe it was clear I was speaking of entire towns, cities, states, etc.
It is similar to the situation with Union Station which is a former government building that is a public space, however is now privately owned and photography can be restricted once inside, from what I understand.
There are a few more undesirable rights Americans and some other countries enjoy, such as the right to free assembly (not on private property), the right to walk around (not if you are trespassing on private property), the right to peaceful protest (not if you are on private property). I know not all countries enjoy these same rights, however that does not make the threat any less to the countries which do.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by togtog:
The dangerous precedent I was referring to was the private ownership of roads and towns. Which can dramatically change the rights and laws covering that area. |
Really?
It's dangerous for a road to be privately owned? How so? Since when?
Toll roads and bridges are privately owned and they've been around for centuries. |
|
|
|
|
06/01/2008 10:09:51 PM · #10 |
North Oaks actually looks more like a "gated community" instead of a city, in my opinion. My GMa lived in one of these in San Antonio with security at the gates. Apparently if you make a wrong turn, you better just stop, cuz that sign says NO TRESPASSING.
Not sure how a city, can exist totally on private property...unless all roads, upgrades, sewage, etc. are paid for by the land owner and nothing from State of Federal taxes are given to them. But I am sure there are ways. Interesting though.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2008 10:31:35 PM · #11 |
| Yes I do agree it does appear to be a gated community, so it would be interesting to know if it is considered to be part of a town, or a town in itself. I believe we have both here in Florida and there isn't much to tell them apart. |
|
|
|
06/01/2008 10:48:05 PM · #12 |
their website seems to show they have a sheriffs department and all...but that is county.
This seems to show it as a HOA that is NOW considered a town.
Message edited by author 2008-06-01 22:50:14.
|
|
|
|
06/01/2008 11:08:59 PM · #13 |
Interesting post.
I wonder what the punishment is for the crime of trespeassing on a road or sidewalk of a private city? The only crime you need to commit is just touching the road or sidewalk. Isn't it 'legal' to respond with lethal force to an invation of your private property?
A prison is a kind of private city--paid for by us. At some point it will probably become more cost-effective for law-abiding citizens to lock themselves into private cities instead, with the lawbreakers locked outside.
There are all kinds of people who would love to have a private city, except if you're on the wrong side of the law it's called a 'compound.' Sometimes the ATF & FBI attack your private city or 'compound' with lethal force. |
|
|
|
06/01/2008 11:31:28 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by togtog:
That is a single road, I believe it was clear I was speaking of entire towns, cities, states, etc.
It is similar to the situation with Union Station which is a former government building that is a public space, however is now privately owned and photography can be restricted once inside, from what I understand.
There are a few more undesirable rights Americans and some other countries enjoy, such as the right to free assembly (not on private property), the right to walk around (not if you are trespassing on private property), the right to peaceful protest (not if you are on private property). I know not all countries enjoy these same rights, however that does not make the threat any less to the countries which do.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by togtog:
The dangerous precedent I was referring to was the private ownership of roads and towns. Which can dramatically change the rights and laws covering that area. |
Really?
It's dangerous for a road to be privately owned? How so? Since when?
Toll roads and bridges are privately owned and they've been around for centuries. |
|
Why is this dangerous? If I own land and I want to keep you out, that's my right as a landowner. Should the government outlaw private ownership of property so you can take pictures?
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 10:50:07 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by togtog:
That is a single road, I believe it was clear I was speaking of entire towns, cities, states, etc.
It is similar to the situation with Union Station which is a former government building that is a public space, however is now privately owned and photography can be restricted once inside, from what I understand.
There are a few more undesirable rights Americans and some other countries enjoy, such as the right to free assembly (not on private property), the right to walk around (not if you are trespassing on private property), the right to peaceful protest (not if you are on private property). I know not all countries enjoy these same rights, however that does not make the threat any less to the countries which do.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by togtog:
The dangerous precedent I was referring to was the private ownership of roads and towns. Which can dramatically change the rights and laws covering that area. |
Really?
It's dangerous for a road to be privately owned? How so? Since when?
Toll roads and bridges are privately owned and they've been around for centuries. |
|
Why is this dangerous? If I own land and I want to keep you out, that's my right as a landowner. Should the government outlaw private ownership of property so you can take pictures? |
Firstly this covers more than photography and you know it, so trying to focus on "so you can take pictures" not only dilutes the argument but also sounds an awful lot like a slur against the worth of photography.
If someone bought all the land around you including the road and trapped you inside, that would be their right as a landowner, no? Life has lines, some thick some fine. I believe there is a line between towns being government owned, operated, and funded by taxes, and private towns where rights can be denied.
I have no problem with people owning land and doing whatever they wish with it, however that should never be called a town or city nor be placed onto a public map as such, because it isn't. It is private land which has been willfully separated from the rest of the land around it. It should have no power to use state taxes, nor should it be able to play favorites as to the laws applying to it.
As private property, anyone hurt on the property can sue the owner of said property for damages. I don't want to hear that because the person was, outside, on on the road walking, that their rights are void even though they are on private property.
I'm not trying to say that any of the above apply in this specific case. Some people decided to buy some land, toss some houses and roads on it, and install a gate saying do not enter, they did install a gate didn't they? Wait, how did google get pictures inside if there was a gate and google was not invited? Could this private property actually have public access? Were signs posted stating it was a private area? That photography was not allowed? If it was gated, who let google in? Doesn't this now make google a guest and therefore they are no longer trespassing? Didn't you suggest google was trespassing since it is a property owners permission to tell someone to get out?
Once again, I don't have any problems with people owning land and telling people to keep out. That is their right.
However as I very clearly stated my concern is that private land owners being able to call themselves towns or cities and get special perks and rights while at the same time retaining their rights as private land owners, or worse being able to buy cities and kick everyone out, or at least deny them most of their rights.
The media has no right to enter private property, if a city was sold and made private property then no media could enter that city to report on crimes that might be taking place. Heck the FBI couldn't even enter without a warrant. Protesters could be immediately arrested for trespassing, etc.
Cities, Public, Yes.
Private Land, Private, Yes.
Private Land, Private but also Town, NO.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 11:31:41 PM · #16 |
| This strikes me as the perfect platonic example of a tempest in a teapot ... someone is in dire need of chilling out. |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 11:40:55 PM · #17 |
Google spokeswoman Elaine Filadelfo said the images of North Oaks were removed shortly afterward. She didn't know of any other city in the country that has made a similar request.
"This is very rare where an entire town would request to be taken off," Filadelfo said.
The company receives a limited number of requests from individuals who don't want their homes displayed on the website. All of these images are removed from public view and would never be sold, Filadelfo said.
Google's got no problem with it, why should we?
R.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2008 11:45:55 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by togtog:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by togtog:
That is a single road, I believe it was clear I was speaking of entire towns, cities, states, etc.
It is similar to the situation with Union Station which is a former government building that is a public space, however is now privately owned and photography can be restricted once inside, from what I understand.
There are a few more undesirable rights Americans and some other countries enjoy, such as the right to free assembly (not on private property), the right to walk around (not if you are trespassing on private property), the right to peaceful protest (not if you are on private property). I know not all countries enjoy these same rights, however that does not make the threat any less to the countries which do.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by togtog:
The dangerous precedent I was referring to was the private ownership of roads and towns. Which can dramatically change the rights and laws covering that area. |
Really?
It's dangerous for a road to be privately owned? How so? Since when?
Toll roads and bridges are privately owned and they've been around for centuries. |
|
Why is this dangerous? If I own land and I want to keep you out, that's my right as a landowner. Should the government outlaw private ownership of property so you can take pictures? |
Firstly this covers more than photography and you know it, so trying to focus on "so you can take pictures" not only dilutes the argument but also sounds an awful lot like a slur against the worth of photography.
If someone bought all the land around you including the road and trapped you inside, that would be their right as a landowner, no? Life has lines, some thick some fine. I believe there is a line between towns being government owned, operated, and funded by taxes, and private towns where rights can be denied.
I have no problem with people owning land and doing whatever they wish with it, however that should never be called a town or city nor be placed onto a public map as such, because it isn't. It is private land which has been willfully separated from the rest of the land around it. It should have no power to use state taxes, nor should it be able to play favorites as to the laws applying to it.
As private property, anyone hurt on the property can sue the owner of said property for damages. I don't want to hear that because the person was, outside, on on the road walking, that their rights are void even though they are on private property.
I'm not trying to say that any of the above apply in this specific case. Some people decided to buy some land, toss some houses and roads on it, and install a gate saying do not enter, they did install a gate didn't they? Wait, how did google get pictures inside if there was a gate and google was not invited? Could this private property actually have public access? Were signs posted stating it was a private area? That photography was not allowed? If it was gated, who let google in? Doesn't this now make google a guest and therefore they are no longer trespassing? Didn't you suggest google was trespassing since it is a property owners permission to tell someone to get out?
Once again, I don't have any problems with people owning land and telling people to keep out. That is their right.
However as I very clearly stated my concern is that private land owners being able to call themselves towns or cities and get special perks and rights while at the same time retaining their rights as private land owners, or worse being able to buy cities and kick everyone out, or at least deny them most of their rights.
The media has no right to enter private property, if a city was sold and made private property then no media could enter that city to report on crimes that might be taking place. Heck the FBI couldn't even enter without a warrant. Protesters could be immediately arrested for trespassing, etc.
Cities, Public, Yes.
Private Land, Private, Yes.
Private Land, Private but also Town, NO. |
In a way, you're correct, the right to hold property as private is more important than your right to take pictures or use something that's not yours.
Actually, I don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you elaborate on the danger and clarify your rantings a bit?
If a town goes bankrupt and some rich person wants to buy it to save it, the government should step in, prevent that and let the town die.
Also, there's no need for a gate just like there's no need for a fence or signs around private property to make it private. That's determined by who holds the title.
AS for your idea of some private boogey-man buying all of the surrounding property and depriving you of access, you really should look up "easements" and study carefully.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/23/2025 12:36:03 PM EDT.
