Seems people in the UK aren’t taking to kindly to Google’s new Street View project. CNN.com reports:

Google’s ambitious plan to offer a 3-D street level view of communities across three continents hit a snag when angry residents of a UK village blocked the search engine’s camera car from photographing their homes.

Google of course claims it isn’t breaking any laws:

The spokesman added: “We take privacy very seriously, and we were careful to ensure that all images in our Street View service abide by UK law.”

Now I’m no lawyer but here in Canada my understanding is that you can take pictures as long as a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy isn’t violated. For example, a photo of a house or a person walking down a street is fine, a photo of a person eating dinner through the window of their house is not. I’m not sure I agree with their reasoning that Street View will give thieves easier access to scouting locations… I mean c’mon already!

Comments?

Read the full article over at CNN.com.

Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations at the SF MOMA, Yeah You Asshole, Photography is Not a Crime,
originally uploaded by Thomas Hawk.

Looks like Thomas Hawk had a little run in at SF MOMA. Nice picture though!

Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA’s decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum.

Unfortunately, I should have known better than to really believe that the San Francisco MOMA was serious about opening up the art and architecture entrusted to them to the general public.

It’s sad really that a photographer and artist following the museums own policy gets ejected from the museum.

This part did make me laugh though – shows you what people DON’T know, or care to find out.

He accused me of using a “telephoto” lens to spy on his staff from the public staircase on the second floor. Blint obviously knows nothing of photography because the 14mm ultra wide angle lens on my camera body was about the furthest thing possible from a telephoto lens.

Reminds me a bit of my own experiences… recently I took my DSLR to the swimming pool to photograph my wife and my daughter in one swimming class and my son in another. I got a few odd looks – granted it is a swimming pool – but I noticed quite a few people with point and shoots who didn’t even get a second glance… can’t wait to go back with a 5D and 70-200 f/2.8L and see what happens ;)

Be sure to read Thomas’ post and digg it as well!

Scott Kelby has a great interview over on his blog with regards to copyright, model releases and shooting in public for photographers.

So, I contacted New York-based Intellectual Property Attorney Ed Greenberg, who’s a published author on the topic, and who has been dealing with photography copyright, contract, and creative rights issues for over 30 years, to finally get the straight no-nonsense scoop on all this.

Ed is absolutely brilliant; he communicates in Plain English (and with a great sense of humor as well), and he cuts through the bull and gets right to the point (which is why we now have Ed, and photography rights advocate Jack Reznicki, co-host a legal session for photographers at Photoshop World).

Very informative, make sure you head over and check out the two part video interview and the entire “Catch My Exclusive Interview with Attorney Ed Greenberg for the Straight Scoop on Copyright, Model Releases, and Shooting in Public” blog post!