Pittsburgh Couple Sues Google Over Photos Of Their House
from the that-sounds-familiar... dept
The term "the Streisand Effect" was coined back in 2005 in reference to Barbara Streisand's decision in 2003 to sue an aerial photographer who, in the process of photographing the entire west coast from a helicopter, took a photo of her house. Not only did she lose the case (and have to pay lawyers' fees), the photo of her house, that no one had paid any attention to, got a ton of traffic. If she had any claim at all (which she really didn't), it would have to do with her being a public figure. However, the situation is even more ridiculous when you're dealing with non-public figures.
Yet, here we are in a nearly identical story. Aaron and Christine Boring are a couple who live in Pittsburgh and apparently have freaked out that Google's "Street View" offering includes a photo of their home. In fact, they've sued Google claiming that the photos of their home violate their privacy and "devalue" the property. They also claim that it was trespassing because there was a clear sign saying that the road was a private road. Of course, as the AP article notes, most of the info is already public, including photos of the house which are available on the The Allegheny County real estate Web site. Of course, looking over the sets of photos, it looks as though the Google street view team may have driven up the couple's driveway a bit, which perhaps (just slightly) explains the complaint. Still, Google says that if anyone wants photos of their property removed, they just need to ask Google and prove that they own the property in question. No lawsuit needed. In the meantime, of course, just as with Streisand, the Google photos of the Borings' house are now widely available and getting a lot more attention. Apparently, the Borings don't listen to NPR.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
by Cynic on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 5:52pm
Now this is priceless, especially when you consider their last name. If the date didn't say Fri, Apr 4th I'd think it was an April Fool's gag, but more is the pity, since apparently they are serious.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
nice by zhenchyld on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 5:53pm
a one bedroom dump with two garages and a swimming pool on a little bit of land. that's exactly what a bachelor like me needs.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Charlie on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 6:03pm
4 bedrooms and 964 square feet. Thats small for a 4 bedroom. Life in that house must be boring.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Anyone consider this: by Randy on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 6:13pm
Maybe since the pictures of the house are already on a real estate web site, they want "the Streisand Effect" to happen.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Looks to me... by Eric the Grey on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 6:26pm
Looks to me like the best they could hope for is a trespassing charge on the driver of the van. He drove up what appears to be their driveway, the apparent "private road" in the complaint.
EtG
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
ha by mttnry on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 7:58pm
heres what I think probably happened-
"hey, check out this cool google street view thing."
"wow, neat thats really cool look up our house."
"dag, you can even see the pool good work google."
"Huh google has a lot of money I bet we could sue them and get some for ourselves"...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ha by Chris on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 8:47pm
The private property sign was probably placed after they noticed they were on "google streets", ill attempt at some fame and money, truly the "New" American way to the "American Dream". I love my country.. I dislike alot of my countrymen!
Am I cynical?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: ha by laughingman on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 9:25pm
very possible
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
he he ha ha by Tom on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 9:43pm
I wonder if they want the money from google to plant some frickin grass...landscaping looks horrible not to mention what the hell are the two garages for?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Looks to me... by Vincent Clement on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 9:51pm
And that is a slim hope at best.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Todd on Apr 4th, 2008 @ 10:12pm
I don't think they have to worry too much about "devaluing" their property. Looks pretty worthless already. What a dive. I mean, a "private road" leading up to that shack?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by um on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 5:16am
their legal brief was boring. oh, they're 'boring' too. figures.
as for their property, it looks like painted cardboard framed in with the cheapest wood they could find. i'd love to see the video of the drive onto their property. was there a sign there then?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: he he ha ha by Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 5:19am
> what the hell are the two garages for?
Killdozer?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 7:10am
devalue their property???? that place is a dump, the pool cost more than the house is worth.
They haven't watered their yard in years, probably make meth in the those detached garages
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Devalue by El Kabong on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 7:18am
Why would anybody build those pasteboard shacks around a pool? Why would a chicken ranch have a pool anyway? What's the big secret? Anybody who's interested in buying the property is going to see it sooner or later, and there goes the sale, because nobody would buy that dump. How Boring!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 7:42am
I looked at the streetview myself and there is no "Private Drive", No Trespassing, nothing on the entire gravel road.
BTW, the images of their house have been removed from Google
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Boring by Gene Cavanaugh on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 7:59am
I think they got what they wanted; a moment of fame and the widest possible exposure to the real estate market.
The real problem is playing into their hands by printing such nonsense.
Of course, the better stuff to write about is controlled by the media, which is controlled by the "right wing" (should be the "wrong wing"). That we won't hear about (like, how the
"surge" didn't really work; it was just manipulated to look that way).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The reason behind the lawsuit... by Annonymous Predator on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 8:24am
Yes, It's a dumpster - dingy, dirty, there is not even any decent looking grass. Someone pointed out the specs I belive they said - 945sq ft. 4 bedroom? Give it a break I lived in a 1 bedroom 700sq ft apartment when I lived in AZ.
Anyway... The lawsuit - which is taking place in... COMMONWEALTH of PENNSYLVANIA... Rather than asking that the pictures be removed - they will claim that their rights had been violated - and further this with emotional distress - because Google did not remove the picture! We'll just ignore the part about "requesting that Google remove these pics would effortlessly have resolved the problem...
Instead we'll file the lawsuit - and then CLAIM that they ignored our request for the removal... As we've seen soooooo many times on Judge Mathis... Where is the proof that you requested this... Uh-oh-Uh... I thought I had it but - I must of left it back at the shack where I sleep with my sister... Oops - did I say that out loud...
Ok - I'm wasting time with this crap - more time than should have been spent on this... Maybe we should file suit against these people for waisting our time with their DUMP!
Now I must drop a load to lighten up this BORING - blog!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
privacy shivevacy by shanwharmon on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 8:49am
privacy was their concern so going public and having their name, address, and nearly every other detail of their life reported in most major news outlets is conistent with their desire for privacy?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Bill on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 8:52am
They're clearly retarded and deserve to be seperated from theior money through lawyer's fees.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Kidding! by slimcat on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 1:18pm
The detached garage of my last house was nearly that big.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
So fitting by Jester on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 1:50pm
You can see why the occupants are suing. They need money to finish their remodeling of the pile of crap they call a house. When people who HAVE no money, and if lived in the south would be called white trash, sue big companies in hopes of getting money it's just sad.
Desperation is a stinky cologne. -Super Troopers
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Boring by Triatomic Tortoise on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 2:17pm
"a moment of fame"?
No way. They are jerks.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Boring's house by D. Rivers on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 3:08pm
This is colossally boring!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Excuse me? by Steven on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 6:06pm
I'm sorry, but I fail to see any value to this property, so devaluing it would be impossable.
And did I miss something? I can't seem to find the sign that says it's private property.
No wonder why they are suing, they have no money! To bad they had to choose Google to go up against, they're screwed.
"No really, my real estate agent told me that this was a 5 star home that is then envy of the neighborhood!"
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: he he ha ha by Anonymous Coward on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 7:30pm
In that shak they're probably growin the grass inside
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Amazing by BTR1701 on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 8:30pm
I think I'd be a little peeved also (but not to the point of filing a lawsuit) if some guy from Google showed up and started photographing my home and trespassing on my property to do it. The underlying arrogance of that company is amazing. They act like everything is fair game for them to put on the internet and if they have to violate a copyright or trespass on someone's property to do it, well then so be it.
If I caught them doing this to me (and given the layout of my property, they'd have to do more than come up my driveway "a little bit" to photograph my home), I wouldn't sue them but the Google cameraman might get a little ass-kickin' for his trouble.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'm from the South and... by Rose M. Welch on Apr 5th, 2008 @ 9:17pm
...if people showed up in my long private driveway, they might get shot. And I wouldn't be breaking any laws, either.
Google very clearly violated their privacy, although I think the home devaluation claim is fluff. Although I detest the lack of Internet privacy, I accept it, esp. because I can choose to not put private information on the Internet. But when people bring that lack of respect to my home, I will sue you... But only if the shots miss.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by sailbum on Apr 6th, 2008 @ 12:55am
Thank g-d the Google camera man was not in Louisiana; he would have come out of it with a load of buckshot in his backside at best or left feet first in a box at worst. They do not take kindly to trespassers down in the bayou! In any case, this suit is a little rediculous. I do not see how they could prove any damages from having their POS house photographed.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Privacy? by CRS on Apr 6th, 2008 @ 7:37am
Look, it appears that clearly these folks are simply trying
to dig into the deep pockets of Google. Look at their property then read their claim. They claim emotional stress? Whatever emotional stress they are under it's due to other issues. Their property looks abandoned anyway....They should be prosecuted for this frivolous lawsuit.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Barbara Streisand" by garrick on Apr 6th, 2008 @ 8:40am
Barbra Streisand, not Barbara.
Silly lawsuits.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by mojo on Apr 6th, 2008 @ 12:23pm
typical of frivilous suits....claim emotional distress....and it6 was caused by property devalue. have they checked the NATIONWIDE trend with property values....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Pictures have been taken down from Google by Anonymous jerk on Apr 6th, 2008 @ 5:50pm
As of just now!!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Seriously? by Jay on Apr 6th, 2008 @ 7:57pm
I've got some news for the Borings...
Google isn't to be blamed for their depreciating property value it is a lethal combination of a poor housing market and a HORRIBLE lawn! Get off Google's back, and put your time into putting some grass seed down. Not to mention the fact that there is a wooden board covering their front door without a stoop or step of any kind. Get over yourselves, if anyone wants to buy your ranch, they are going to go through a Realtor, not Google maps.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
i would be mad by paul on Apr 6th, 2008 @ 10:19pm
yeah the value stuff is fluff. but look at the pictures the camera man had to drive practically to the end of the drive way to get the picture of the pool.
I don't see where that has any public value. House aside. He went to far.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Apr 7th, 2008 @ 7:43am
So Google goes to the trouble of sending out vans to photograph things but it is up to the homeowner to request the pictures to come down?
Thats kind of like being a shoplifter walking out with stuff and then claiming that he would have gladly paid for it had he been asked.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Apr 7th, 2008 @ 9:39am
So Google goes to the trouble of sending out vans to photograph things but it is up to the homeowner to request the pictures to come down? Thats kind of like being a shoplifter walking out with stuff and then claiming that he would have gladly paid for it had he been asked.
Except, that no, you're entirely wrong. Taking a photo of property is not illegal (it's not "shoplifting"). So, it's perfectly legal to put it up. In fact, there's no requirement that they should then have to take it down. Google doing so is because the company is being nice, not through some sort of legal reason.
So, you're basically 100% wrong on your analogy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by didn't anyone notice why on Apr 7th, 2008 @ 11:04am
they might be so mad. Take a look at what the county assessors' office says is on the property compared to what they actually have. Me thinks their property taxes are about to go up. Maybe that is why they are trying to sue Google.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Apr 7th, 2008 @ 6:18pm
So tresspassing isn't illegal Mike? I think it is so you are entirely wrong.
Nice? I think not. So basically you are 100% wrong in your post, you dick. FU and have a good day.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on Apr 8th, 2008 @ 1:09am
So tresspassing isn't illegal Mike? I think it is so you are entirely wrong.
Er... you should try reading a bit before making such incorrect statements. The original comment was about Google just sending out regular photographing vehicles, which had *nothing* to do with trespassing. Almost all of the street view photos are taken from the street.
Whether or not this is trespassing is a separate issue than the comment I was responding to.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by sandy on Apr 20th, 2008 @ 7:40pm
they sound like a couple of "Pittsburgh rednecks" to me
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment