Duty to mitigate damages, blah blah blah, wasting the court's time, non-story.

Boring people are jackasses.

Sounds to me like the couple just want to get some money from a deep-pocketed company. I hope they lose everything, and that their lawyer sues the couple to recoup his money. I also hope their lawyer gets hit by lightning.

twice

A Google spokesperson explained that such claims could be forwarded to the company, which would then remove the image from the system.

"Anyone can get Google to remove the images if they have a good reason to back up their request," said Larry Yu, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "We absolutely respect that people may not be comfortable with some of the imagery on the site. We actually make it pretty easy for people to submit a request to us to remove the imagery."

The couple, however, decided to skip the request and go straight to the filing of the 10-page suit.

So, yes, that's why they are jackasses, for anyone who doesn't want to RTFSA.

Rumor has it that Christie's maiden name is:

Dumas Be Otch

I would call them lazy for skipping the painfully easy process of removing "personal" images from gMaps, but pressing a full lawsuit is just plain stupid. They'll lose for sure, and they definitely deserve to.

Do they live here?

I'm so sick of people suing (and winning) for the sole purpose of getting rich off some bullshiat claim.

I'm sure my opinion would be different if I was in a position to become wealthy, though...

/We're such geedy bastards...

Dude, it's Google. They're loaded with cash.
You don't bother with the service, you go right for the money!

Their claim, if true, centers on the fact that Google must have trespassed to get those images. If that really is what happened, they have a case- not on the grounds of privacy (although that can be used in demanding damages).

On the other hand, if the images are from the public roads, then that isn't the case. Part of the confusion in rural communities is the confusion between public and private roads. I once worked at a summer camp that had a private road that continued straight of the end of a public road. The local town paved both, because they didn't actually know where the public part ended.

matt120784: I'm so sick of people suing (and winning) for the sole purpose of getting rich off some bullshiat claim.

Why do you hate America?

matt120784: I'm so sick of people suing (and winning) for the sole purpose of getting rich off some bullshiat claim.

If they win, I absolutely agree with you. But how often do they actually win? And how often are those "wins" appealed, or settled out of court for a very tiny fraction?

More often than you think. While I am all for tort reform, I don't think the system is as bad as the press makes it out to be.

First Farker to say "b-b-b-b-b-but McDonalds Coffee Cup woman!" is kindly guided to the links in my profile.


/And yes... this will get thrown out of court and we'll never hear about the Borings again.
//Because lets face it.... they're boring.

BORING!

Boring couple trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. The judge is going to laugh them out of court with a dismissal.

So Mr. And Ms. Boring have a child, what's the kid's name?.

ultraholland: Why do you hate America?

Because I haven't found a way to profit from it.. yet.

t3knomanser: Their claim, if true, centers on the fact that Google must have trespassed to get those images. If that really is what happened, they have a case- not on the grounds of privacy (although that can be used in demanding damages).

On the other hand, if the images are from the public roads, then that isn't the case. Part of the confusion in rural communities is the confusion between public and private roads. I once worked at a summer camp that had a private road that continued straight of the end of a public road. The local town paved both, because they didn't actually know where the public part ended.

Even if it was a private road, that does not mean you do not have free access, only if it was marked no trespass or something would they have a case.

In PA small towns and such have "private" roads as it's either that or nothing.

matt120784: I'm so sick of people suing (and winning) for the sole purpose of getting rich off some bullshiat claim.

I'm sure my opinion would be different if I was in a position to become wealthy, though...

/We're such geedy bastards...

It actually doesn't happen that often.

The problem is news reports story like this one where someone files and everyone just assumes they win because the news never follows up when the person actually loses.

It's mostly a BS myth that people can file and sue and win millions of dollars perpetuated by those who wish to make laws to limit the liabilities of those with legitimate claims.

This claim is going to get thrown out quick just based on that they didn't go to Google first to try to get it removed.

Why do so many stick up for Google like they can do no wrong? We will have to see how the particulars of this case turn out to see.

Personally I'm against public surveillance. Especially for profit, even if it's "legal" as current law stands. Would you be OK with a film crew parked on public property outside your house but filming inside your house all the time?

Complaint at The Smoking Gun, plus Google and Property Assessment pics of the house.

That is one ugly house.

HairBolus: Complaint at The Smoking Gun, plus Google and Property Assessment pics of the house.

That is one ugly house.

I'd be embarassed for it to be on Google too...

(new window)

Nobody found the map/picture/view/thing that these ppl are so upset about?

I figure its got to be something opposite of their surname.

//S&M part in their lawn or something

CygnusDarius: So Mr. And Ms. Boring have a child, what's the kid's name?.

Totally.

Let's see them do something about Superman.

Oh now I get it. They're just embarrassed about their lawn.

I am corrected by HairBolus. No S&M party, just damned ugly house.

HairBolus: Complaint at The Smoking Gun, plus Google and Property Assessment pics of the house.

That is one ugly house.

Google should say "we will pay you $25,000 if you will DEMOLISH THAT NASTY STRUCTURE."

And ironically, a suit like this for invasion of "privacy" has caused people all over the world to know exactly who they are and where they live.

In further irony their own county makes images of their house publicly available. I notice they didn't sue them too.

vodka: Why do so many stick up for Google like they can do no wrong? We will have to see how the particulars of this case turn out to see.

Personally I'm against public surveillance. Especially for profit, even if it's "legal" as current law stands. Would you be OK with a film crew parked on public property outside your house but filming inside your house all the time?

I have curtains, and miniblinds in some rooms.

"Anyone can get Google to remove the images if they have a good reason to back up their request," said Larry Yu, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "We absolutely respect that people may not be comfortable with some of the imagery on the site. We actually make it pretty easy for people to submit a request to us to remove the imagery."

So... it's opt-out *only*. No opt-in? That's nice. Were they given notice ahead of time that their home was going to be posted? Were they even given notice that they COULD opt-out, if they so wished? Google just went ahead and did it?

I hope the couple wins. Just because a company CAN do a thing, that doesn't make doing that thing -right-, regardless of where the photographer stood (trespassed or on public land).

mekkab: First Farker to say "b-b-b-b-b-but McDonalds Coffee Cup woman!" is kindly guided to the links in my profile.


I find it amazing how this nation is full of judicial super people with the ability to know all details of a case and it's case law better than the judge and jurors who were on the case for weeks just by reading a small piece about the case for 20 seconds.

matt120784: HairBolus: Complaint at The Smoking Gun, plus Google and Property Assessment pics of the house.

That is one ugly house.

I'd be embarassed for it to be on Google too...

Can we all sue google as a class action for making such obscene photographs available without warning or age check?!

pm378597: I am corrected by HairBolus. No S&M party, just damned ugly house.

Though you do need to wonder about those two out-buildings. Meth lab perhaps?

Corvus: I find it amazing how this nation is full of judicial super people with the ability to know all details of a case and it's case law better than the judge and jurors who were on the case for weeks just by reading a small piece about the case for 20 seconds.

I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't stop me from blathering on and on and on and on about things I know nothing about!


/everyone hates lawyers... until they NEED one.

I think the correct term for this structure is "compound"

vodka:
Personally I'm against public surveillance. Especially for profit, even if it's "legal" as current law stands. Would you be OK with a film crew parked on public property outside your house but filming inside your house all the time?

That would be monitoring your actions. That isn't what this is.

mama's_tasty_foods: HairBolus: Complaint at The Smoking Gun, plus Google and Property Assessment pics of the house.

That is one ugly house.

Google should say "we will pay you $25,000 if you will DEMOLISH THAT NASTY STRUCTURE."

And ironically, a suit like this for invasion of "privacy" has caused people all over the world to know exactly who they are and where they live.

In further irony their own county makes images of their house publicly available. I notice they didn't sue them too.

It's called the Striesand effect (as in Babs) referring to her complaint against an aeriel photographer of Clifornia's coastline which showed her manision. (her house was not identified as hers) So she sued and then everyone found out which house was hers.

Google already took down the images.



Get off my lawn!

minestrone11: I would call them lazy for skipping the painfully easy process of removing "personal" images from gMaps, but pressing a full lawsuit is just plain stupid. They'll lose for sure, and they definitely deserve to.

I hope Google countersues.

Ah I see, as long as you are a company with a favorable reputation and an official "do no evil" philosophy, you are allowed to trespass on other people's property.

Microsoft should have a "we do less evil than Google" official company philosophy posted on their website. The sheep will then forgive them.

It's funny when people who want something on the internet to not be seen by the masses make a huge stink about it, making people who otherwise have zero interest go and see what the fuss is all about. More people have now seen that picture than if nothing was done.

t3knomanser: Their claim, if true, centers on the fact that Google must have trespassed to get those images.

gund: Ah I see, as long as you are a company with a favorable reputation and an official "do no evil" philosophy, you are allowed to trespass on other people's property.


I think a lot of us (well, myself, at least) missed this facet. Still, aside from taking the photos down, what can the couple expect as compensation? (any law-taking people, feel free to pipe up now)

They are probably just embarrassed because their house doesn't "fit" the neighborhood. Just take a look at the Google street view in the neighborhood and the houses are much more impressive (expensive and nicer) than this overpriced cottage.

btw Google HAS made the images unavailable.

Mine's not on there, and it was built in 2002 but it's still just nothing on google.

I should sue. They're taking my freedom.

So they want privacy. Instead of quietly having Google privately take the pic down, they file a suit, which is public.

I find this illogical.

mekkab: I think a lot of us (well, myself, at least) missed this facet. Still, aside from taking the photos down, what can the couple expect as compensation?

Jack and shiat. Also, Google may countersue to recover the cost of their defense. Definitely stupid when they can just ask them to take the pictures down.

I think a lot of us (well, myself, at least) missed this facet. Still, aside from taking the photos down, what can the couple expect as compensation? (any law-taking people, feel free to pipe up now)

I personally would be satisfied if they ASK first, shoot (pics) later, for every private property they want online.

Corvus: vodka:
Personally I'm against public surveillance. Especially for profit, even if it's "legal" as current law stands. Would you be OK with a film crew parked on public property outside your house but filming inside your house all the time?

That would be monitoring your actions. That isn't what this is.

Street view is nothing more tnan would be available to someone driving down the street.

I have no problem with it. I recently used Street View to look at several locations in an unfamilier area I would be traveling in. Made it a heck of a lot easier to know when my turn was coming up while driving in traffic.

No suprises when the street sign pops into view in rush hour traffic.