You NEVER have to Blur Faces - was Re: Confused... hm.. Am I?
- Can I solve this definitely for once and for all if it's not clear to anyone?
Not that I'm privy to any information that you're not. But since this is my job I feel that I should be sure to understand it.
Please anybody correct me if I'm wrong about any of these points.
-Google blurs ALL the faces in streetview for 2 main reasons I guess: 1) it's good PR. 2) it's easier to use the same workflow for all images. It's good, for them, to show the public that they respect the idea that some people want privacy even though they are completely able to publish all these photos without blurring anything. Except in a couple of countries which are particularly paranoid - Germany (no offense guys), maybe France, and Switzerland (where there is still no streetview online, they have some very very strict privacy laws WRT photography in public, i guess) Anyway I understand and agree with google's position - streetview isn't artistic, it is a navigation tool, and people are in this case a distraction more than anything, and eliminating any discusion about it regardless of what the local law might be, is a win for them. ("we" make a different type of image, this is clear)
-As Hans pointed out once this has had the VERY unpleasant collateral damage of making some people out there think that it is now the law that anytime you snap a picture in public that you have to blur the faces. this is not the case.
-Laws for commercial photography apply - you can't shoot portraits of strangers in public and sell these photos which contain *only* a face. That's not allowed. If the photo is not for sale but rather is journalism (this definition i'm not quite entirely clear on) then it's ok. panoramas by their very nature almost never contain people as the sole or primary subject matter.
-of course if someone asks it pays to be courteous and respect people's wishes (although to be clear there's no law about this either in most places)
I don't really feel like starting a long discussion on this here, it has been discussed before.
So, don't blur the princess, don't blur the license plates, don't blur anything. This is the world, this is photography, and in the world exist many photos and license plates. so be it.
--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" <roger@...> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 15:58:38 +0900, Bostjan Burger <si_lander@...>
> > I spent few weeks in Netherlands last month and had shot about 1K of
> > panos covering almost all geographic hotspots of the country.
> I've always thought that Holland was good panorama country. The horizontal
> dimensions of the scenes are so much larger than the vertical except in
> the cities!
> > It was not planed but as an example I get a pano of princess Maxime in
> > Hague e.t.c. Now I wonder if I really need to blur all the faces, car
> > license plates, boat license numbers and names, house numbers as I saw
> > on GE Street View. Do I need to blur the face of the princess or 'only'
> > faces of the people nearbyâ¦? I am really confused. The way as GE Street
> > View is NO GO for me as the panos would be crippledâ¦ on the other hand
> > when I look at the TV News broadcasting faces and licenses plates are
> > clear â¦ so why TV can but VR panorama not? The example of the
> > experiment of the Canal View of Amsterdam â" shot handheld and with the
> > help of risen monopod to about 3.5 m high â" 4 shots:
> > http://www.burger.si/Netherlands/Amsterdam/03.html. I did the same
> > experiment with the purpose to find out how many panoramas can I take
> > with the handheld method, stitch them, program the virtual tour and
> > publish itâ¦ all in one working day (I work about 14 hour per day/ 7 day
> > per week ;)
> I will be interested in the replies we get from our Dutch friends. I am
> afraid that the law elsewhere is unlikely to be strictly applicable. We
> are very fortunate here in Japan. There is no blanket rule, but it is
> understood that if someone sees they are going to be in your picture
> and asks you not to include them you politely agree and face away, or
> wait till they are out of view. There are far fewer aggressive attempts
> to force one view or defend another. More polite give and take. Although
> I think if you demonstrated unwillingness to act as expected, things
> might escalate rather quickly. That almost never happens, though. THere
> seems to be a fairly well established consensus on what is acceptable.
> The only possible exception is when commercials filmed in public
> places show recognizable faces. Then, people who appear can ask for
> a performer's fee or require that the shot be no longer used. This
> happened to my best friend in Japan, who at the time was a rather
> prominent market researcher serving many major companies. He was
> horrified to see his face very distinctibe and easily recognizable
> face in closeup used in a beer commercial. He objected and the
> commercial was immediately discontinued. I think he also got a
> case of beer and a groveling apology out of it...
> > ): http://www.burger.si/Ljubljana/map_Ljubljana_prtrg_ljgrad.html. The
> > result was 180 VR panoramasâ¦ the nadirs were automatically blurred with
> > the batch process. If I need to blur all the faces, shop names, license
> > plates, house numbersâ¦ the time needed only for Â»blurringÂ« would be at
> > least additional day or even twoâ¦ and result would be â¦khmâ¦ something
> > Â»idioticÂ« ...
> The tour of Ljubjiana is really beautiful, very light and bright... It
> would be a shame to deface these people, so many of them young and
> good looking!
> Roger W.
> Business: www.adex-japan.com
> Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger