Agrophobic Traveller & copyright?

F

Ferj

Messages
1,655
Edit My Images
No
https://www.google.co.uk/about/stor...ium=hpp&utm_campaign=agoraphobictravellercouk

I did a search but couldn't find anything about this so apologies if there's already a thread.

I'm totally confused by this article, firstly I think it's great they've found a way to be happy & work around a condition that must be horrible. Secondly I'm bemused. Surely images in Google street view are the copyright of someone if not only Google? So how is taking screenshots and then creating an exhibition even legal?

I've followed the instagram and yes there's some interesting shots but still I'm confused! Clearly Google is endorsing it by posting the link on the homepage so is a screenshot now a new piece of work, much like the man who screenshot instagram and made a fortune? Clarity please!
 
'Murica, innit!

Richard Prince would have the shoite pounded out of him under the UK (& EU) copyright system, but the USA thought it sensible to have a Fair Use clause!
 
Sorry for being dense does that mean that because Google are from the US she is able to do this with no issues? Yes Richard Prince was the man I was thinking of, thanks!
 
Richard Prince is still in legal proceedings in regards to the instagram images... it's just that most victims in that event didn't pursue legal action. And he has lost in some instances before (but not nearly enough IMO).

The fair use exclusion of "transformative" simply means that a copyright source can be used as the inspiration for a new work, and parts may even be included. But the new work cannot be a copy of the original work (i.e. a change of medium from photo to paint would be a derivative work copy and a violation in US terms).
This is similar to how you can take a photo that includes a copyrighted photo, but your photo cannot be OF the other photo.

In regards to this particular situation, my guess is that google owns the copyrights of the images in question. But instead of seeing the infringement as a negative and pursuing the individual, which probably would have generated a ton of negative public response and little gain, they turned it into a positive for their platform/service with a bunch of positive PR.
 
I've spent the last nearly 9 years bed bound, struggling to even hold a camera and yet I have taken and still take plenty of photographs, including wildlife,portraits, macro etc.
I've even managed to win awards for my photography including winning my category and the overall 1st prize in a national petsmart dog photography competition judged by some of the fine professionals on this site and had another photograph awarded Ephotozine's editors highly recommended award and readers choice award, so claiming agoraphobia limits the person to using other peoples images/street view is a cop out at best!
 
Last edited:
Ferj said:
https://www.google.co.uk/about/stor...ium=hpp&utm_campaign=agoraphobictravellercouk

Surely images in Google street view are the copyright of someone if not only Google? So how is taking screenshots and then creating an exhibition even legal?
Click to expand...

Google has nothing to lose. It doesn't create or sell imagery. This part of the company has mapped the planets, and presents imagery for navigation purposes.

I'd say it counts as art. Her images are unique. She finds and processes them from almost infinite possibilities. Fair play, I say.
 
There's been quite a lot of these over the last 5 years. I saw an exhibition at Moma, Doug Rikard, who photoshopped out the google watermark, yet acknowledging it was all done at home
https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2011/newphotography/doug-rickard/

Then theres Jon Rafman
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/jul/14/google-street-view-new-photography

Benjamin Grant
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...th-Artist-captures-hypnotic-images-globe.html

I can't remember whos exhibition I saw that had google earth images of the impact open cast mining was having
 
After seeing all of the examples posted here I decided to check. It seems that all of these uses are (probably) a violation of the TOU's. And in some cases probably a violation of third party copyright. And in all cases the uses seem to be in violation of DMCA/Moral Rights in accordance with the TOU.
So I guess the question is, are these "new work" (i.e. fair use) significantly different enough to stand on their own as unique/creative, or are they merely copies (derivative works)? I would judge them to be copies from what I have seen.

I guess it doesn't really matter if no-one is complaining. And it's probably beneficial to Google to not complain because they benefit more from a "free source" type of paradigm. I.e. their project to create/distribute an online library of scanned books. But it does look like it might be riskier than I first thought (i.e. third party copyrights).
 
Last edited:
From the video, I think Google have seen it and, being the company they are, have decided that instead of pursuing one individual for breach of copyright, they're using it to promote Streetview. Streetview's about search, Google's about search, her story, ultimately was about search.

Realistically Google wasn't losing out in any way from her producing these images, and they would have gained lots of negative PR from pursuing it. In the current climate, more people do business with companies that have a strong CSR, so they will have gained massive amounts of credibility.

Had a company like Apple or Disney somehow been behind Streetview, you can almost guarantee that they would have put a stop to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top