11–20 of 45 posts
Google has all the data and algorithmic chops required for this, too. Just use their reverse image search feature, as helpfully explained here: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/1325808?co=GENIE... They have tons of images from social media sites, too.
Can anyone chime in on why California's law is necessary to force the deletion of your data? Wouldn't these photos be subject to copyright law?
From what someone said in a previous thread the copyright part is not that simple, so as an example the person that takes the picture can claim the copyright not the subject. Probably there is a different law that would prevent others to make money using your image but is not the copyright AFAIK
I'd also like to see what would happen if Europeans reported them to their data protection agencies. Nothing will happen to the company, since it's in the US, but it might make the life of the execs hard if they ever wanted to do business in Europe.
Can anyone chime in on why California's law is necessary to force the deletion of your data? Wouldn't these photos be subject to copyright law?
From what someone said in a previous thread the copyright part is not that simple, so as an example the person that takes the picture can claim the copyright not the subject. Probably there is a different law that would prevent others to make money using your image but is not the copyright AFAIK
There is a right of publicity [1] that tends to come into play if I want to use a photo of you for commercial purposes like advertising. However, if I sell a candid photo of you that I took in public to a newspaper or if it's in a book I sell that's OK. (Assume it's straightforward use and nothing that could be misconstrued or deliberately misrepresents you in some way.)
No idea about this case and IANAL. But it seems in general that I would be able to freely use images on the Internet for training models and for other purposes that don't involve republishing those images.
[1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-right-publicity....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what someone said in a previous thread the copyright part is not that simple, so as an example the person that takes the picture can claim the copyright not the subject. Probably there is a different law that would prevent others to make money using your image but is not the copyright AFAIK
But selfies would be pretty unambiguous, no? Maybe even enough to get the ball rolling on a class-action, if enough Californians requested their data and got back a bunch of selfies. I'd also like to see what would happen if Europeans reported them to their data protection agencies. Nothing will happen to the company, since it's in the US, but it might make the life of the execs hard if they ever wanted to do busines…
California/GDPR laws are great but they don't stop the data collection, merely allow the user to access it.
We need to make companies like Clearview completely and unquestionably illegal. I am infuriated and don't know what we can do.
How do we stop this? Can we sue Clearview through EFF with the grounds of violating copyright or some weird law? California/GDPR laws are great but they don't stop the data collection, merely allow the user to access it. We need to make companies like Clearview completely and unquestionably illegal. I am infuriated and don't know what we can do.
I don't see it get mentioned much, but Yandex's reverse image search [0] will also match similar facial images. It works surprisingly well. Other search images can obviously perform this function, but I think most stay away from it because of the creepy factor. [0] https://yandex.com/images/ - click on the camera for the reverse image search
Just tested it, it returns people with some similar features but that are obvious different persons, different face shape and size , maybe facial hair and glasses confuses it or they could not find any better matches so they returned just something so it is not empty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what someone said in a previous thread the copyright part is not that simple, so as an example the person that takes the picture can claim the copyright not the subject. Probably there is a different law that would prevent others to make money using your image but is not the copyright AFAIK
>Probably there is a different law that would prevent others to make money using your image but is not the copyright AFAIK There is a right of publicity [1] that tends to come into play if I want to use a photo of you for commercial purposes like advertising. However, if I sell a candid photo of you that I took in public to a newspaper or if it's in a book I sell that's OK. (Assume it's straightforward use and nothin…
How do we stop this? Can we sue Clearview through EFF with the grounds of violating copyright or some weird law? California/GDPR laws are great but they don't stop the data collection, merely allow the user to access it. We need to make companies like Clearview completely and unquestionably illegal. I am infuriated and don't know what we can do.
stop uploading your pics to internet then
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Probably there is a different law that would prevent others to make money using your image but is not the copyright AFAIK There is a right of publicity [1] that tends to come into play if I want to use a photo of you for commercial purposes like advertising. However, if I sell a candid photo of you that I took in public to a newspaper or if it's in a book I sell that's OK. (Assume it's straightforward use and nothin…
I'm trying to understand where subject release documents fit into this. So I don't have to get those signed to take pictures of people, even in public? What if it's a still from video?
A video is just a sequence of still frames so I don't know why that would be any different.
IANAL. Added: I'm primarily familiar with the US. Your mileage may vary elsewhere.
*subject possibly to what I wrote earlier about misleading or defamatory purposes, e.g. if I use a photo of you to illustrate an article about neo-nazis.