Reading mode: Light Dark

"Your house is about to be photographed"

Go to last post
M

Molokai_fiords

Active member
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Location
US
So, as defenders of the photographers right to photograph in/on public places, what are your comments to this:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/02/06/188251.shtml

""Photographers from a Canadian company are going house to house, shooting pictures of every house in America, in hopes of building a giant database that can be sold to banks, insurance companies, and appraisal firms. While this activity is legal (as long as the photographers don't trespass on private property to get their shots), there are obviously concerns about security and privacy. Considering that an individual can be detained and questioned by the FBI for photographing a bridge in this country, why should this Canadian company get a free pass? Tinfoil hat aside, something seems very, very fishy here.""
 
Well all I can say is that in my experience the people who have something to hide have the biggest & most complex fences.....You want to try living in Scotland, because the previous owner of my house & land took out a forestry grant to plant some trees, every urban greaseball now has the 'right to roam' over my property as it's deemed to be publicly accessible........

--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.

equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses. http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/portfolio
 
If what is being photographed is on public display and the photographers aren't on private property then there are, by definition, no particular privacy or security issues.

As with all model/property releases, the critical issue isn't the taking of the photo, but what rights the photographer has to utilise the photo afterwards. So, if an image was used to endorse/promote a product or cause without permission then there would be an issue. If, on the other hand, it is just used for informational purposes - and merely as a record of information that is by definition already in the public domain - then I would guess that there wouldn't be a problem.

If it was a problem then we wouldn't have Google Earth.

Simon C
http://www.eyematter.com
 
How does planting some trees give the public right to roam?

Simon C
http://www.eyematter.com
stevetog said:
Well all I can say is that in my experience the people who have
something to hide have the biggest & most complex fences.....You
want to try living in Scotland, because the previous owner of my
house & land took out a forestry grant to plant some trees, every
urban greaseball now has the 'right to roam' over my property as
it's deemed to be publicly accessible........

--
Your failure to be informed, does not make me a wacko.
John Loeffler.
equipment- lots of FulL FrAMe & whacky lenses.
http://www.pbase.com/foodphoto/portfolio
Click to expand...
 
I just have to wonder just how many "photographers" this company has hired. I have this mental image of 4 or 5 Canadians riding around in a VW microbus shooting all the houses in the country. Unless they have a LOT, I doubt that they can even keep up with new construction.

DIPics
Molokai_fiords said:
So, as defenders of the photographers right to photograph in/on
public places, what are your comments to this:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/02/06/188251.shtml

""Photographers from a Canadian company are going house to house,
shooting pictures of every house in America, in hopes of building a
giant database that can be sold to banks, insurance companies, and
appraisal firms. While this activity is legal (as long as the
photographers don't trespass on private property to get their
shots), there are obviously concerns about security and privacy.
Considering that an individual can be detained and questioned by
the FBI for photographing a bridge in this country, why should this
Canadian company get a free pass? Tinfoil hat aside, something
seems very, very fishy here.""
Click to expand...
 
"right to personal privacy" versus "the public's right to know"...

The house photographing project highlights the same issue that Google presents to the world. Easy access to information is good, up to a point. Google indexes everything published on the web. You are about to be offered the high paying job of your dreams when your prospective boss decides to do a quick google search on your name just before offering you the job -- he finds an entry from a former paramour's blog from 10 years ago describing (falsely) what a deviant you are -- no job offer. How do you feel now about the free availability of information.

Having too much information in one place, easily indexed, freely available, without restrictions/rules of use presents very significant problems for the society, which we have yet to address.

In regards to pictures of YOUR house -- copyright the likeness of the house and then go after the scoundrels when they try to use the image. Many buildings and landmarks have been copyrighted -- why not your house!!

One small step to slow the persistent erosion of our right of privacy.
--
Best regards,
Jim

Gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/borderrose/viewgallery
 
If all the database holds are pictures and locations, neither the security nor the privacy concerns are obvious to me. Microsoft's local.live.com already has aerial images of all of a number of US cities at four different angles at resolutions that allow identification of individual homes.
--
David Jacobson
http://www.pbase.com/dnjake
 
Molokai_fiords said:
"Photographers from a Canadian company are going house to house,
shooting pictures of every house in America, in hopes of building a
giant database that can be sold to banks, insurance companies, and
appraisal firms. While this activity is legal (as long as the
photographers don't trespass on private property to get their
shots), there are obviously concerns about security and privacy.
Considering that an individual can be detained and questioned by
the FBI for photographing a bridge in this country, why should this
Canadian company get a free pass? Tinfoil hat aside, something
seems very, very fishy here."
Click to expand...
Photographers have access to private property for photographic purposes ONLY if the photographs are intended for editorial usage, ie: an article on architecture, a book on landscaping, a newspaper story on the value of real estate, etc.

When the photographs are being used for commercial purposes...ANY commercial purpose where the image has been captured in the interest of making profit for the photographer by being sold or resold (rather than as fullfillment of an editorial assignment)...then a signed release from the property owner is mandatory, otherwise the photographer is wide open for a lawsuit.

Think it ain't so? Try photographing in and around a mall (most malls are privately owned and considered private property)...particularly INSIDE the mall...and see how far you get before a mall guard comes up to you and asks what you're doing. You might get lucky if you grab a shot or two with a small camera like a G7 or Fuji F30, but if you keep at it with the likes of a 5D, 1D II, etc., you will definitely be approached and politely asked to stop.

--
Steve Garey
http://www.stephenmichaelgarey.com
'Imagination is more important than knowledge.' — Albert Einstein
 
veroman said:
...
Photographers have access to private property for photographic
purposes
Click to expand...
What does "access" mean here? If the photographer is on a public street is he accessing the property?

I have read the original details, but about seven years ago, while I was still working in the I.T. business, I was hired out to a Canadian realty (oops - REALTOR) company. IIRC they began by creating a database of photos & details of all the properties that they had listed for sale. Then they realized that if they also had photos of other properties in their database, they had a leg up on the competition - could create a for sale ad without needing to send a photographer. So they planned to shoot every residential property in Canada. Looks like they finished that project and are l@@king for fresh fields to conquer. I don't recall hearing of any Canadian lawsuits.

--
John W Hall
 
John Wexsessa Hall wrote:
Looks like they finished that project and are
John Wexsessa Hall said:
l@@king for fresh fields to conquer. I don't recall hearing of any
Canadian lawsuits.

--
John W Hall
Click to expand...
That is because there are not near as many hungry lawyers in Canada.

--
A picture is a picture, a photograph is an extension of your mind.

sealsphoto
 
John Wexsessa Hall said:
I was hired out to a Canadian realty (oops - REALTOR) company. IIRC they began by creating a database of photos & details of all the properties that they had listed for sale. Then they realized that if they also had photos of other properties in their database, they had a leg up on the competition - could create a for sale ad without needing to send a photographer. So they planned to shoot every residential property in Canada. Looks like they finished that project and are l@@king for fresh fields to conquer. I don't recall hearing of any Canadian lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Just because lawsuits weren't filed doesn't mean the company wasn't vulnerable to lawsuits.

But...more importantly...I'm not sure I fully understand what you wrote. Did they photography property they weren't representing? If so, why would they do such a thing? Why would they shoot every residential property in Canada if they were only representing a handful of those properties?

In any event, if a realty company is representing a home owner, they obviously have a contract with the home owner and part of that contract certainly stipulates that they can take pictures of the property and advertise the property...the equivalent of a release. At least, that's how it works in the U.S..
--
Steve Garey
http://www.stephenmichaelgarey.com
'Imagination is more important than knowledge.' — Albert Einstein
 
veroman said:
Photographers have access to private property for photographic
purposes ONLY if the photographs are intended for editorial usage,
ie: an article on architecture, a book on landscaping, a newspaper
story on the value of real estate, etc.
Click to expand...
I guess you dont read do you?

They where taking pictures from public property and did NOT access private property to get the photographs except for some exceptions of gated communities where they got explicit permission to do so.

Then you throw in editorial use which has nothing to do with legally taking a picture. If you dont know what you are talking about it might be better not to even try ...
veroman said:
When the photographs are being used for commercial purposes...ANY
commercial purpose where the image has been captured in the
interest of making profit for the photographer by being sold or
resold (rather than as fullfillment of an editorial
Click to expand...
nonsense again. There are plenty of uses other than editorial where there is no need for a release especially for a regular house
veroman said:
Think it ain't so? Try photographing in and around a mall (most
malls are privately owned and considered private
Click to expand...
Actually the issue with the mall is an issue of being on private property (i see you still dont understand this)
veroman said:
property)...particularly INSIDE the mall...and see how far you get
Click to expand...
like INSIDE private property (INSIDE get it)
veroman said:
'Imagination is more important than knowledge.' — Albert Einstein
Click to expand...
seems your motto

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top