Haven't used it, but apparently it's great stuff. Works via a Chrome extension.

Post by the author is at https://andydickinson.net/2019/10/17/clean-street-view-extension/

If you've got a story with a strong 'where' element - an accident or crime report - simply dial in the location on Google Maps, switch to street view and take a screen grab. Instant location image!

One issue with screen grabs from Google Streetview is framing them up so that you get a useable image but miss off all the user interface.

The development was inspired by this journalism related article (https://medium.com/@digidickinson/clean-screenshots-from-google-street-view-4164ac34f3fc) on Medium.

You can download the Chrome plugin from https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clean-street-view/lhkidipggaennjfclhkocofdmbhcomhj?hl=en-GB

The alternate / geek source files for the plugin are located at https://github.com/digitaldickinson/Clean-StreetView

Andrew

It sounds like you are advocating for the use of Google Map images without proper attribution, which is a violation of their terms. https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide/
People in the video/photo/film business should be especially vigilant about not promoting anything that encourages the theft of images from others. Chris should remove this thread.

Well, no, there's no encouragement or advocacy to use Google Map images without proper attribution. It's merely the sharing of tool knowledge of what is out there, and this will be very handy for those of us who have appropriate permissions for use of Google Maps imagery.

I do recall some years ago the "Keyhole" software which was the pro $ version (and predecessor to Google maps) was the version that came with the correct licensing for usage. Vague memory is that this might have become Google Earth Pro which later had its cost changed to free. The Pro version of the software was the one with specific functionality for recording HD fly-throughs etc. Anyway, it was written about at the time at https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/526744-google-earth-pro-now-free.html

If Google considers the extension to be infringing on intellectual property rights or otherwise promoting unlawful activities, they'd simply remove it from the Chrome store. Also of note, Streetview functionality is now available in Google Earth which would indicate that the technologies have since all come together as the maps product matured.

Andrew

BTW, really good to have that attribution link for the Google imagery. (I'm personally yet to make use of Google Earth imagery.)

Andrew

Thanks for that, - tips about what is out there are so helpful.

Haven't used it, but apparently it's great stuff. Works via a Chrome extension.

Post by the author is at https://andydickinson.net/2019/10/17/clean-street-view-extension/



The development was inspired by this journalism related article (https://medium.com/@digidickinson/clean-screenshots-from-google-street-view-4164ac34f3fc) on Medium.

You can download the Chrome plugin from https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/clean-street-view/lhkidipggaennjfclhkocofdmbhcomhj?hl=en-GB

The alternate / geek source files for the plugin are located at https://github.com/digitaldickinson/Clean-StreetView

Andrew

Belated thanks for the recommendation on this. It's very handy.
:)

It sounds like you are advocating for the use of Google Map images without proper attribution, which is a violation of their terms. https://www.google.com/permissions/geoguidelines/attr-guide/
People in the video/photo/film business should be especially vigilant about not promoting anything that encourages the theft of images from others. Chris should remove this thread.


Google would be fine ones to talk about the theft of rights?

What right have they to photograph all and sundry without consultation. It's open to debate legally in many jurisdictions. The legality of some of their street view images are currently being questioned around the world. Especially when they have been taken from high up on some of their camera rig vehicles, which often allows views over fences into private property. In Europe there is now a big push-back against Google's publishing of those images is the question. Not the taking of the photos per se. The publishing of them.

Quote
"In Europe, the creation of Google Street View may not be legal in all jurisdictions. Some European countries have laws prohibiting the filming without consent of an individual on public property for the purpose of public display."

Note. That says on public property. Sorry, I couldn't defend Google's rights to act against people who use Google's street view photos without asking. I've worked in media in the UK, across Europe and in the Asia Pacific for many years and generally speaking unless it's for "news" you need to get releases signed if you want to publish someone's image. People who have lived under totalitarian regimes are very wary of being "filmed". Can't say I blame them, having filmed in many of the countries that have or have had oppressive regimes.

Those of us having the luxury of the liberties we enjoy by virtue of living in a free democratic society take these privacy issues with a grain of salt. The privacy liberties we take for granted are just not there for many in this world

Thanks for the heads-up, Andrew. Whether I'll ever use the facility or not is moot

Chris Young

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Street_View_privacy_concerns

Chris, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Whether you believe someone has the right to photograph public places (and publish them) has nothing whatsoever to do with someone else misappropriating someone else's intellectual property. Apples and oranges.

Once again, I think this thread should be removed because it advocates piracy of someone else's work. Whether you think the creation and publication of the original content is illegal is moot.

Sorry Doug.
I see no advocacy of pinching Google's work in Andrew's postings. Just a promotion of the fact that Google images can be used without any overlay. I would not use Google's images without some kind of clearance from them. It just raises the question, does Google have the right to use many of the images they put up? If not, then Google has no intellectual property to protect in those images, as they are using them illegally. In those cases, Google cannot complain if people do use them, without seeking permission. If Google doesn't have a legal right to certain images, they don't have a leg to stand on. Those images shouldn't be up there, period.

Chris Young

No, Chris, you are completely on the wrong side of the fence on this one. Using intellectual property by stripping off the required attribution is theft.

It doesn't matter whether Chris Young approves of Google taking pictures from public locations or not. You can question it. You can disapprove of it. But you have no authority to declare it illegal and use that as justification to take what isn't yours. There are a lot of things I could steal if I decided in my own head that I didn't think the owner had any right to have it in the first place, so I might as well help myself to some of it.

I find it ironic that on one hand you say Google doesn't have the right to take or use the images, but on the other hand it's perfectly okay for someone else to download those images and do whatever they want with them because Google shouldn't have had them in the first place. What a foolish argument.

The most important part; the attribution seen in the right bottom corner that has copyright notices, is not allowed to remove but the small overlays in the left top and bottom of that image are not a problem to take out. For that part this extension is great to use but you should add the attribution back again afterwards.

Here is another example of the BBC stripping all overlays and attribution from a googlestreetviewimage while adding their own overlay, under each image they only mention "image credits: Google"

Maybe they got special permission from Google to do it like that but it again shows that as long as you add the attribution afterwards it should not be a problem using this chrome extension but there probably will always be exceptions depending on how you plan on using it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60610840

Doug. If you read my post accurately, you will see I do not advocate the use of copyright material. How Google can claim copyright of an illegal image capture in countries where it is illegal to use this footage of theirs is where I have a problem. As I said in my post, "I would not use Google's images without some kind of clearance from them."

When it comes to copyright theft and attribution, Hollywood is one of the worst offenders. They used footage we shot of HMAS Torrens being blown up and sunk by a Mk 48 torpedo in 1999. Footage capture that cost a fortune to set up and execute. All shot Digi-Beta from two helicopters using Continental mounts on them. From miles out, as they wouldn't allow our choppers too close in case of flying debris.

Michael Bay had no compunction of using this footage without with even approaching the copyright holders for the use of the footage. Footage from a shoot that was paid for by Australian taxpayers.

Only after the threat of legal action by the Australian government against Michael Bay and Touchstone Pictures, Jerry Bruckheimer Films did the RAN finally get paid for it. Bay and Co were then, after the fact, granted permission to use it.

Trivia:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0213149/trivia/?ref_=tt_trv_trv

"During the "Fighting Back" black and white film montage, a ship with hull number 53 is shown exploding. The footage is actually the destruction of the decommissioned H.M.A.S. Torrens, a Royal Australian Navy destroyer escort sunk as a target by the Collins Class submarine H.M.A.S. Farncomb in 1999."

From a personal point of view, I've been on the receiving end. I have occasionally seen footage I've shot, footage that I own the copyright to, come back out of my TV and slap me in the face. Three times from US TV networks who have used program footage I've shot that that was licensed to local networks with no on-sell agreements in place but where the US networks involved have just grabbed if off-air when it was broadcast and incorporated it into their global disaster type productions. Making legal enquiries, I was soon advised that the cost of taking on these US TV networks to task was well beyond my means. Kiss it goodbye, I was advised.

A crappy part version of the original navy shoot. No idea where they got the footage from. Again, used without consent or attribution. Sadly, this is the world we live in.

Chris Young

Australian Torpedo Test - YouTube

I don't see the relevance of your anecdote. One wrong does not justify another.

I tried the plugin and I was not able anymore to look at a map with streetview, as soon as I deleted the plugin I had access to streetview again so in my case it doesn't work.

I don't see the relevance of your anecdote

You made your point. BTW I never advocated the use of someone else'e copyright material. Show me where I have advocated that. As far as your reference to my comments as being anecdotal, you are dead wrong, Doug.

Anecdotal evidence lacks verification and is largely based on very limited context. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.

The cases I referred to where I have been involved are not anecdotal. To the contrary. I was involved, so the examples I presented are first person based and documented, no hearsay involved. All the cases mentioned are documented and verified by the government and the networks involved. After the HMAS Torrens sinking copyright footage was used illegally, it was finally credited to the rightful copyright holders, the Australian Dept of Defence. Totally documented and verified, One of the conditions was the credit in the IMDB database to make it clear to all and sundry where the footage came from. In other words, absolutely nothing anecdotal in what I have posted.

Chris Young

Chris, "anecdotal" doesn't mean false. And I wasn't saying that your stories were untrue. I totally believe every word you have writen. But those are just stories about other individual cases of copyright infringement that have nothing to do with the Google issue. One wrong does not justify another, so the details of those case are totally irrelevant.

You said, "I couldn't defend Google's rights to act against people who use Google's street view photos without asking. "
In my opinion, that comment condones the OP's original post and gives a green light to usng images without attribution. If that's not what you meant, then choose your words more carefully next time so you don't give that impression.

You said, "I never advocated the use of someone else'e copyright material."
If this is true, then we are exactly on the same page and no further comment is necessary.

I agree with Doug on this one. Google has published a lot of guidelines for use of their imagery, but they make it pretty clear you are not supposed to modify their interface, which would include removing things.

"Don’t change how the Google Maps user interface looks. While you may add annotations like points and lines, you must not significantly alter how the product interface looks"

https://about.google/brand-resource-center/guidance/entertainment/#product-specific-guidelines-google-maps