A Frenchman is suing Google over a Street View photo that shows him peeing in his garden, which has made him the laughing stock of his village. As with most people in Street View pics, the man is slightly blurred, but because he comes from such a small place and he was at his own house, everyone recognised him. "He discovered …
Re: How close were the pictures to be so embarrassing?
I'm assuming the picture we are seeing now has been blurred, while it wasn't before
Surnom = nickname
Nom de famille = surname
Don't look back in Angers...
... and you'll end up on Google Street View in compromising circumstances!
Re: Don't look back in Angers...
Indeed, it could have been worse, he could have been cuffed by a passing officer of the Loire <groan>
Any self-respecting Frenchman knows pissing in the street is the right thing to do when outside - one thing we share in abundance with our Galic brethren.
Do I need to start checking round my front yard for pole mounted cameras? How is this sort of thing legal?
Legal or not
But taking a leak in the middle of [your own] courtyard *is* moronic. The man in question is a pig and he deserves to be ridiculed.
Re: Legal or not
Hold on a minute there. Where I used to live there was only one bathroom and the hot water tank was in a cupboard in my room. I would often get woken up to the sound of running water when someone got up for a shower. This means I awoke with an urgent need to piss (exacerbated by a night on the sauce usually) and an inhabited bathroom. My only option in these circumstances was to leg it behind the shed.
Admittedly, I did use the back garden.
Re: Legal or not
"an inhabited bathroom" -- You have people living in your bathroom?
Re: Legal or not
Sounds like standard student digs to me!
Now we know what The Stig was doing at the side of the A92. Do you think the BBC should sue too?
In the USA, whizzing in view of the street can be prosecuted as public lewdness. It has unfortunate side effects of also-affecting nursing mothers, etc.
If it is legal and meets local health codes to whiz on your driveway, then this guy did nothing wrong. He just didn't want it on Google.
It doesn't change the fact that he is NASTY, through.
Re: Trickle, trickle...
It can also get you permanently listed as a sex offender, as a couple local drunk college students discovered.
Re: Trickle, trickle...
'It has unfortunate side effects of also-affecting nursing mothers " How since its legal to nurse in public .
Re: Trickle, trickle...
Public nursing still has its taboos. Women DO get arrested for it, usually as part of an indecent exposure misdemeanor 'ticket'. The last I heard, public parks and other seemingly public places have rules that cover breastfeeding.
There are privately-funded legal representation groups that attempt to get these statutes off the books, though. Maybe someday...
Re: Trickle, trickle...
40 out 50 states have law that explicitly says breast feeding in public is not illegal. It's legal to do at the federal level. Last time I heard a cop trying to give a women a ticket for that he got reamed out .
Re: Trickle, trickle...
ncsl.org says that 45 have such laws, but 5 do not. WV is particularly intolerant. Federal laws override state laws in many, but not all, situations.
I MUST WHIP MY TITTIES OUT, IT'S NATURAL.
So is having a dirty big shit.
"If his gate was closed and he couldn't be seen by pedestrians, then he would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, IMO."
This isn't the test under French law merely because it is in US law; you might as well discuss Shariah. The right to one's own image applies in French law, as does the right to have one's dignity preserved. This is an interesting case in that the identity is understandable even though the image of the person is obscured, and means that it could be either an image that denies dignity or an effective news story breaching the right to a private life. French privacy law is really very strong, so discussions of US law have almost no bearing.
I understand what you mean jaduncan but people on this site are found of quoting UK. law when the article are based in the US
I'd have thought discussion of US law would be entirely relevant, since y'know, US law now applies to almost every country in the world.
I wonder why he didn't just go into his house and use the toilet like a normal person...?
How would anyone know it's his car if he hasn't marked it?
Confused by terminology -- to me this guy looks like he is in his driveway or car park area - nothing resembling a "garden". Is this an "across the pond" thing?
Clearly, he's taking the piss.
Just tell them...
to piss off.
should have layed off
le "pee at door".
Get Officer Crabtree on it!
(Mine's the one that says "Good Moaning" across the back)
surely it would have been remarkable if Google got a picture of a french street with no-one pissing in it?
Google get his wireless lan details while they were at it?
Never mind Google
This is a better picture of the call :
The problem is "fouling the footpath".
So what happens when some other animal does it? Inquiring minds want to know and all that...
Queue remarks about potty humor for the remainder of the day...
What on earth is "whizzing"?
Do you all talk American school slang euphemism now? How about "pissing" (happens to be that or similar in most European languages) or "peeing" or "urinating" or even, let's be a little old fashioned, "passing water"?
Suppose you precious idiots ask for a "bathroom" even when you want just a lavatory/WC/toilet in case someone is too delicate ever to need a WC themselves. Or do you rush off for a rest in the Restroom?
Anyway, perhaps the man has got a prostate problem and could not wait. It's his garden, of his home and I imagine he was not expecting a camera to be peering over his fence or hedge. After all, if some passing tourist or neighbour had photographed him in such a way and got it published in a newspaper or stuck the picture on the parish noticeboard, even you may have found it objectionable. So why should some large advertising company be allowed to do what it likes?
. Why should anyone have his or her image in any pose scattered around the world, without permission, by some advertising company for the prurient delight of some passing Reg reader? Privacy? What is that exactly?
League Against USA colonisation of Language and Culture and loss of personal freedom
Re: What on earth is "whizzing"?
I agree :)
If anyone takes my picture and expects to use it for anything, then I would most certainly expect them to clear the use of said picture with me. Or _sufficiently_ anonymize the picture.
Neither of these things happen in this case. The man is surely owed at least his $10k - were it up to me, the penalty would be higher for corporations above a certain budget. Cumulative, you know ...
A black bar, à la Borat chasing Azamat,...
...'covering' (well, exagerating) his peener's length, and he'd have said "Great Success!!"
So, never heard of the "Streisand Effect"
So, can we say, pissing in your garden if you have a perfectly good bog indoors is a bit, say, tacky?
Someone passing by sees you and takes the piss.
Someone with a camera sees you, posts it on the interwebs, and lots of people take the piss.
This is something that could have easily been avoided (no pun intended), and down to your own lack of tack. The size of the audience is entirely coincidental. Privacy is dependent on your (and everyone else's) expectation of a private act in a private place. I doubt that that would extent to "in full view of anyone in the street". Having the right to ones image would be a hell of a thing to preserve. You would probably end up with a total prohibition on posessing a camera in a public place.
OK, lots of "piss" in this comment. No wonder I have a shiny 'S' key :)
Street view camera height is way above normal ( 2 metre hedge ) height
Google street view cars have their camera mounted on a tripod/ pole contraption which places the camera at 2.7 metres above road level..or about 8 feet and nine inches above road level for the merkins and the metrically challenged Brits..
Here in France you need planing permission to build your garden wall ( on modern houses ) higher than 2.00 metres ( about 6 feet 6 inches ) ..this is to stop you building bloody great walls and blocking out the light from your neighbors garden or house windows..and you get flak from the local council if you let your hedge etc obscure their light too ..so most garden walls ( on modern homes at least ) stop at around the 2.00m or 6 feet 6 inch mark..
This guy was photographed by the street view car..over the top of an 8 foot, dense hedge ( the man, the house, the garden , the hegde, the lawyer etc, were all on French TV here this evening ) running along side the road that runs by his garden.. the street view camera is not at a height that any pedestrian could see things at..it is incredibly intrusive, and in France it is illegal to photograph someone who is not in a public place without their permission ..blurring them after the fact does not give Google or anyone else the ability to flout the law here..
He was in his own back garden behind his own bloody high dense hedge..he can do what he wants..
Google have also been in trouble for photographing over the tops of cafe style curtains ( the kind that only cover the lower 3/4 of windows, but that stop people less than 2m tall seeing in ) into peoples houses..and even for photographing into their bedrooms on old houses with low first floors..In Japan they had to lower the cameras to the eye level of an average person or as close as they could get to Japanese average ..had to be under 6 feet IIRC..
France takes privacy very seriously..a fact which some of you should be grateful for as the CNIL here seem to be the only ones with the balls to tackle Google and Facebook et al over online tracking, privacy etc..
Cost of doing business; ...
... "peace" on ya Frog.
Re. fuzzy Dailey Mail pic
"From the pictures on the dailymail I would say you can't see anything"
It stands to reason (pardon the pun) that the Daily Mail would possibly want to avoid being slapped with the same lawsuit. Presonally, I don't think the guy is an awkward customer at all (libel as well?): EUR 10k is an entirely reasonable sum in comparison to what it would cost Google in ye olde US of A.
However, I see a VERY expensive argument being used: "we are not in France, and thus do not have to comply with French laws". If the court accepts that as an argument it would provide Google with a very convenient excuse to do whatever they like. Google has already discovered that this doesn't fly with Streetview, there isn't a judge in France who will let that argument stand - almost regardless of the merits of the case itself.
As for the case itself, you have a formal right to privacy as stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and implementations thereof. A fence above eye height (typically 1.8m and above) is clearly for privacy. Any t*sser standing next to your fence with a periscope is thus willfully infringing your privacy, and so are Google's cameras at the height they operate - and they know this (Switzerland and Japan were first to object). Forget "too big to comply" or "we're foreigners", if fence > 1.8m and data acquired, then breach. Simple.
Re: Re. fuzzy Dailey Mail pic
Interesting. In the UK you can get in trouble (I think) for being naked in your own garden, if others can see you.
But anyway - 8foot is significantly higher than normal eye-line, BUT still visible to any lorry driving past and therefore is in 'public view', no?
If that was for me ? ..I'm Irish not French..but live in France..
Left te UK ( where I had lived for near 30 years ) in 1987 ( after Thatcher and Major had ruined the Uk it looked to be wanting to go down the same path for the next 20..Maybe John Smith could have made it somewhere worth staying..but then he "cough" died "cough"..so I was time to get out :-)..
traveled around a few years wound up here..
It has it's faults..
But at least it didn't have Blair...and it is waaay less chavvy than the UK...nor is it the de facto aircraft carrier for the US..and it doesn't bend over and hand the lube to Google, Facebook and other US mega corps..
It reminds me of Britain or Ireland in the late 60's..apart from the large cities ..and large cities are crap in every country ..I know..I've lived in many before arriving here..
Haven't you guys heard of...
...slashing your grass?
To wee or not to wee?
No, don't wee. Hold it till you get to a proper loo.
Life Imitating Art.
The Naked Video (IIRC) Spoof Advert with a urinating Frenchmen for
“The French adore le Piat d'Or”
No one remember that from the 80's - Ohhhh please yourselves!
I've been waiting for this one to come up...
...granted, this isn't quite how I thought it would manifest, but...
"He is suing Google in a court in Angers for infringement of privacy and use of his image without permission. He wants the photo taken off the site and, naturally, he wouldn't mind about €10,000 in damages as well."
Tell me now, is the picture of him his intellectual or creative property? What about the garden he's standing in or the way he has painted his house? If it is, then there is a collision here between privacy (non-privacy) laws and IPR, isn't there? If not (and I can hear lotsa people saying "No reasonable expectation of privacy means footage can be taken") then suddenly art galleries, cinema's and theatres have an issue too, don't they? Those are public locations and thus I am free to take pictures and films?
Even if there is some dubious clause to protect corporate privacy and not private privacy (and I'd hardly be suprised at the existence of such), then I still think its only a matter of time before some company slurps someone's original artistic works and runs afoul of the "artists" IPR.
If I write a message on gmail to someone, and google slurps it, then surely they are in breach of my intellectual property rights, or is it the case that I have no expectation of privacy in my emails and therefore the content can be legally copied by anyone who wants it?
Either way, I see exploits.