[alistairSH]

Let's assume for a moment that the photo was taken in public.

Normally, you don't have much expectation of privacy in public spaces. Generally, a photographer is free to take photos in public and use those photos as they see fit. Why is Google's use of your photo different than the photographer's use of the photo?

[reaperducer]

Why is Google's use of your photo different than the photographer's use of the photo?

The law doesn't protect your image, it protects your biometric information.

To extend your flawed analogy, a photographer isn't allowed to take a gigapixel photograph of someone in public and then use the data from their fingerprints or iris to uniquely identify them.

[alistairSH]

That sounds like a distinction without a difference.

I look at a photo, my brain tells me the photo is of "Bob", he's caucasian, male, with brown eyes. I enter this information in a spreadsheet.

Google algorithm looks at a photo, algorithm tells me the photo is of "Bob", he's caucasian, male, with brown eyes. I enter this data in a spreadsheet.

All Google has done is automate a process we were already capable of doing manually.

Edit - in my mind, the problem/question is people using photos commercially (or granting Google the rights to use commercially) photos they don't have legal rights to use that way. This would mostly apply to photos taken in private places. Photos taken in public can usually be used commercially by default.

[lotu]

Would the photographer be allowed to identify using your face? This is pretty commonly done in newspapers.

[rahuldottech]

> Let's assume for a moment that the photo was taken in public.

This is a wrong assumption to make. What if the photos were clicked in my house? In a private gathering?

[alistairSH]

If it was taken in private, you have an expectation of privacy and the photographer is already legally prohibited from using the photo for commercial purposes. The photographer already should have obtained a commercial release.