Yes.  There are also cases in the US of the use of images of commercial
buildings in movies for example, where the owner sues for infringement.  In
the movie business, rights for this sort of thing are negotiated.  The
impending onslaught of a new breed of public image negotiators and brokers
is scary but inevitable (similar to the rise of computer law specialists).
But controls (middle layers) are emergent in systems and this is an example
of that.

The arguments that struck me as flawed have come from lawyers asked to
comment in articles and from John Pike on the nightly news claiming that
Google has a strong case given the view is no different than a casual drive
by.  They fail to note the publication of said image in very public sites
for commercial purposes even if for free.    When the press does that, there
is a story and an obvious public interest.  When Google does it for
navigation aids, that is just as easily achieved with good 3D modeling,
doesn't have the update/staleness and peekaboo issues, and the content is
actually more repurposable.  Planet 9 licenses models for movies as well as
public safety.  That sort of thing is actually a good business and a high
value product. So again, I would ask them about images such as I described.

What are their business goals and do they need images to do it.

The next step is real-time camera feeds.  It's just a streaming movie
texture and 3D systems for security already include these.  Intergraph sells
them for security systems now so it won't take long for Google to offer that
to companies who use their Street Level views. Now a stalker or a private
investigator won't have to leave the house.  Fortunately, streaming views
would likely cross a different legal threshold with regards to public
surveillance, but I cease to be amazed at what these companies believe is
acceptable social technology.

Unfortunately, I think the compromise will be an opt-out system meaning
people have to take the time to request the images be removed.  It's like
having to ask the burglars to give back the silverware if you can find their
fence to make the request.  Meanwhile, they stay on display.

The quotes from Megan At Google are really disingenuous.  One can almost see
the drafts of the Message Maps (1) with the answers and the three supporting
bullet points.  When a company PIO (public information officer) responds to
a serious event like that, one may as well be talking to a bot.  Google is
retreating behind their bots and that is way worse than anything Microsoft
has ever done in terms of implications to the average citizen anywhere on
the planet.

len

(1) Message Maps:  look it up.  The Katrina map is a pretty good example.
They are used by government groups and others when there is to be an
anticipated briefing by an official who must not answer spontaneously.  In
these systems, *sensitivity* of information is defined as 'harmful to the
ability of the organization to carry on operations'.  So when you think the
official being grilled is responding like a talking head with a script, it
is because they are.   

From: Michael Kay [mailto:mike@s...] 
 
>I've big objections to photos of my house. 

I believe it has been established by case law in the UK that if you design
and plant a garden, that garden is an artistic work protected by copyright,
and publishing photos of the garden is a breach of copyright even if the
garden is on display to the public (or to a satellite).

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/