Significant judgement

Anyone who is pleased that Google has been hit on the roof with the Federal Administrative Court's ruling on Google Street View may be overlooking noteworthy connections to the media industry. After all, Google is not offering Street View for free out of pure altruism, but as part of a strategy to attract local businesses as advertising customers. The keyword here is local search and refers to the last major advertising market that online providers can still conquer. Various companies have been trying to gain a foothold in this market and develop it for years - no one is thinking of giving up. The software giant Microsoft, for example, is now also trying to photograph streets in Europe with a Street View clone called "Street Side".

In order to keep up with the business on their doorstep, it is quite possible that regionally active publishers will one day make it their business to document their distribution areas with their own street photography. Competitors can only be outdone with better images: more up-to-date, higher resolution and, above all, compliant with data protection regulations. Such images are primarily used for own products in the local search area, but can also be lucratively licensed to third parties. If this were to happen, easy-to-use data protection regulations would also be in the interests of publishers. However, this is not currently in sight: according to company spokesperson Christoph Zimmer, street images are "not currently planned" at Tamedia subsidiary Search.ch.

This can also be done differently than Google does today. With a bit of event marketing, such camera drives can become a happening that strengthens your own brand and improves your market position. For example, artistic and other roadside activities can be called for, which are then rewarded. The Allgäu town of Oberstaufen has shown how this can work: a huge event was prepared for the arrival of the Google car and the PR effect of this huge event was used for its own community. An active fan community can be encouraged in the sense of crowdsourcing to contribute to the completion of the pixelation. Google has recently taken a step in this direction and launched a corresponding tool, Google Map Maker.

Journalists in particular would do well to consider the possible consequences of the ruling. After all, ubiquitous cameras, whether in smartphones or on car roofs, are a reality in the 21st century and are becoming part of the reporting repertoire. Installing webcams at the scene of an event - for example at the Chilbi or in the event of flooding - and publishing the images live online is nothing new and will naturally be seen as a media task in the future. This can certainly be done with genuine journalistic motivation: A camera with motion sensors can be used, for example, to document how often critical traffic situations occur at a particular location and thus draw attention to the urgency of measures. However, the ruling is likely to influence journalistic practice. Legal considerations as to whether media freedom has been restricted or not are of little use here. Rather, the point is that with this and other similar decrees of recent times, the famous "scissors in the head" are becoming increasingly effective. Nicole Aeby, Head of Photography Studies at the MAZ School of Journalism, notes that the attitude of young photographers has "already changed". Today it is "rather unethical" to take pictures of strangers without being asked and to publish the photos. Young female photographers were "more inhibited and overcautious" and some no longer dared to photograph people in public spaces. Just as it has long since become common practice in this country for respondents to proofread their quotes and, if necessary, change them, photojournalists will also have to take on additional administrative expenses in the future - or simply want to avoid them in view of the time and budget pressure. As a result, more and more journalists will refrain from obtaining an additional point of view or from taking and offering an additional picture - thus indirectly restricting media freedom. Christoph J. Walther

Images: Keystone

THE JUDGMENT

Services such as Street View are practical: remote and unfamiliar areas can be explored on the screen to find out whether a visit meets expectations or how best to navigate the area. According to Google, 25 percent of Swiss people have already used Street View. However, not everyone is happy about this, which is why the Federal Data Protection Commissioner and former Green Party National Councillor Hanspeter Thür felt compelled to take the search engine giant to court for violating privacy. The bone of contention is faces and car license plates that are still recognizable despite the automatic post-processing of the images. Now, at the end of March, the Federal Administrative Court has clarified the legal practice with its ruling on this issue, stating that the right to one's own image also applies to so-called staffage, i.e. images in which people appear as an accessory to the landscape, surroundings or event, so to speak, and that the right to informational self-determination must therefore be observed. It is therefore illegal and punishable by law to depict a person in public without their consent. It remains to be seen whether a court will be prepared to make a distinction between a comparable publication in Street View and in a journalistically managed medium in the event of any future legal action by private individuals against established media. The ruling states that Google's offer does not represent a public interest and is "primarily of a financial nature" - but this applies equally to the vast majority of media products.