Google Says “No Photos” Of Web 2.0 Booth. Photos Are Taken Anyway.
Michael Arrington
61 comments »
Look closely at the photo of Google’s booth at the Web 2.0 conference, because there is apparently something there that Google didn’t want photographed. Do you see it?
Yeah, me either. Looks like a normal, non-confidential type booth to me. Apparently they were demoing Adwords.
But both Scott Beale and Jeremy Johnstone were told that photos of the booth were prohibited and were asked to “vacate the area”. Beale was polite and walked away (annoyed). Johnstone, though, did the right thing: he took the picture above and posted it to flickr.
Whatever Google’s reasons for not wanting the booth photographed, the prohibition quite predictably had the opposite effect. Eventually, Google software engineer Bob Lee took the initiative to track down the reason for the ban. Problem solved.
Google probably just didn’t want word getting out that they made their booth out of giant tampons.
What photos were “Taken Away” or is this another BS TechCrunch headline. I mean did they force somebody to give up their SD card? Smash someone’s camera on the ground?
They just wanted to make sure you’d write about ‘em!
The logo looks a bit different to the Google home page - the lettering is thicker, check the stalk of the e, it’s much shorter.
Maybe they didn’t want the new logo broadcasted?
Maybe the signage person accidentally used the “Medium” instead of “Light”? Maybe it was simply too thin to have lights behind otherwise?
Maybe this is stupid?
Brandon - not “taken away,” but “taken anyway.” sort of the opposite meaning.
Michael, I love it when you stand your ground and know exactly what your rights are (both in regards to this case, as well as standing up to frivolous C&D’s).
if that gets people to write about you I’ll ask people to ‘vacate the area’ around their computer when they attempt to do a screenshot during or after our product launch (or stare to long at one area of the screen, you know, some of em have photographic memory…).
p
Don - C&Ds are just free traffic for the most part.
They got what they wanted… you wrote a post about them didn’t you?
I thought I saw Taken Away. I am going to bed now. I must be seeing things. Sorry Michael
If this were some company other than Google, it’d be plausible that they were doing it for PR value.
Google doesn’t need the PR. It’s probably something else.
@1, or blown-up condoms.
stupid though - if they don’t want their photo taken, why are they in that public venue? they should expect it otherwise.
and besides, if it’s about software - their monitors are turned against the crowd anyways.
I think it’s the guy on the right clearly looking at things he shouldn’t have…
fyi,
when you do a Google search, those are the two guys that actually return all the relevant links… they are the google engine.
I think it’s the super-secret gas that they use in their inflatable booth. I bet they’re going to unleash it to influence the unsuspecting throngs at the Web 2.0 conference.
On second thought… maybe not.
It looks like the same set up that they have had at conferences for the last three years…. Maybe that is what they don’t want people noticing.
I’m thinking an endorsement of PC versus Mac?
The reason why habeeb, the gent on the left, didn’t want the picture taken is cause his ex-girl friend in Texas has been looking for him to pay child support.
@1 LOL!
That is all.
Isn’t that just an old PR trick Mike? Tell people not to take pictures, and everyone will want to.
That, or their PR department is very strict about their brand and its presentation. Same reason they bought up GooglePoo.com.
Sound like “Oh NO..NO”, but mean yes YES.
People have every right to reject the PR’s demands, though may politely accept.
Anyway, the whole whing is more like a PR stunt.
Well it looks like nobody can buy up googlesucks.com to protest. Sorry guys.
#18…that was a good one.lol
or it could be these two guys don’t actually work for Google and don’t want to get their asses kicked for impersonating.
Is this a pictures of Google booth, or Chinese nuclear arsenal.
the black laptops do not fit with the booth..
I hope that this intrepid photographer was properly compensated for the use of their copyrighted photograph on this site…
Wait I see, there must have been a mix up between Google and Yahoo event space! Google took Yahoo space by accident.
I was pretty interested to read the reason that Bob Lee’s came up with, but cannot.
Unfortunately, for an avid techcrunch reader like myself in the U.A.E, twitter is blocked.
Heres hoping you guys never host your images on flickr, cause thats blocked as well.
This is sooooo EVIL !
from Google !?!
(sigh of disbelief)
It is just a booth, I see no reason why it should be treated otherwise.
It’s a bit rude stopping people taking pictures of their booth when they’re busy taking pictures of the entire world without asking our permission!
Perhaps you should play them at their own game - I’m sure if you want an image removed from Google Streetview you have to send in a certified copy of your picture ID and jump through all sorts of hoops before they consider removing the image.
Mike, bit of a beat up of nuttin?, unless that woman’s hand is down that guys pants.
You need to get some rest.
May be next time you should walk with hidden camera..
This problem is probably caused by bad management …
It happens when the company gets too big … it’s really hard to hire people you can depend on to actually protect the company’s interest…
What a complete non-story!!!!!!!
Yeh a non-story and yet another link to Twitter! LMfao
They didn’t want you to take a picture because it clearly shows that Google is on a bubble… ok, maybe on more bubbles…
Google needs to check the TOS for conferences they plan to attend, most have it clearly stated “You will be photographed, we will use photos for whatever we want, attendess will be photographing you and will post and blog about you”.
Why? so they would appear on techcrunch.
They probably had it planned… “let’s get Arrington pissed, I bet they’ll write about google if we act a little evil”
typical arrgorant idiots at google!
My friend and I had to give the google booth the shocker after we heard about it
http://twitpic.com/j43
like the rest of google, it’s mostly men - that’s what they didn’t want you to see.
Duhh!
The TM is missing from the Google logo.
It’s a brand requirement thingy PR people obsess over.
hey that’s Nash! he seems to be pretty happy his picture is taken
I told them not to take pictures of MY booth, but the Google Street View car drove by anyway. *Sniff*
“Yeah, me either.”
You mean “neither.” Me neither.
Right on…I think this is a brilliant marketing ploy on Google’s part. Hmmm…gives me an idea. Thanks Google.
Peter
C’mon - Google have photographed the whole freakin planet….How can they get weird when Robert Scobel points a camera at their booth.
I’m with Peter - pure marketing spin.
> “I politely told him I had every right to take a photo”
No, you don’t have a right to photograph anything you’d like at a private tradeshow on private property. The people who run the show can very easily make “no photograph” a condition of entry, or make “photography only on request” a condition of entry.
If this were out on a sidewalk then the photographer would probably be right — it’s hard to limit photography of things that are visible from public. But this isn’t outside or in public. This is inside, at a private tradeshow.
There is no generic right to photograph anything you want while you are an invited guest on private property. If the people who invited you onto the premises say that a condition of attending the show is to not photograph anything then you have no such right. If they say that a condition of entry to the show is to respect the wishes of booth owners, then you have no right to photograph if they’ve said no.
I don’t know why people think that having a blog puts them above both law and common courtesy.
But Mr. Law School,
The property does not belong to Google, so if they want private property rights asserted here, they’re going to have to ask the owners of the facility to expressly forbid photography on the show floor.
I highly doubt that’s reasonable or practical given the nature of the show - and further, I doubt it would be acceptable to the other participants, most of whom would be delighted to have their booths photographed.
yeah, law school guy, i hope you’re not actually practicing law on behalf of clients.
@Mr. Law School, I have to agree with Arrington here. I really do hope you are not practicing law on behalf of clients, especially not if they are photographers. Thankfully in my case, I have read numerous briefs and books by proficient attorneys who deal with photography related law on a daily basis. I would highly advice all photographers to know their rights in detail if nothing else to keep themselves out of trouble.
Intelligently, the Web 2.0 Expo has no policy prohibiting photography at the conference, especially on the Expo floor. There are literally thousands of cameras snapping photos throughout the day. This is not an uncommon thing at a tech conference, especially one of this size, and Google definitely would have known about this.
Had Google really had a problem with this, and not the situation was caused by a “miscommunication” to booth staff as it was put to me, they should have not had a booth in the Expo hall.
I think it is obvious. If you look in the top left hand corner of the picture you will see the Rearden Logo. Google is currently making a bid for Rearden and they don’t want anyone to know until the deal is signed.
Google seems to have this general attitude about pictures regardless of specifics. I was at the Google Chicago office recently and remembered this rule from my visits to the headquarters in Mountain View so I politely asked if I could take a picture of their big logo in the reception area. The receptionist said “no”. This seemed rather silly as it’s nothing, but the company name, and there didn’t seem to be anything else around that could be top secret. Later, I asked someone else (a product manager, perhaps) if I could take a photo of the reception area and he said it was fine. So I did and posted it on Flickr. I doubt you’ll find anything top secret on that photo either, or any of the others I took during that visit. I avoid taking photos of white boards with notes, but Google doodle type wall decorations? That seems extreme.
yeah, law school guy, i hope you’re not actually practicing law on behalf of clients.
This is the level of commentary I’ve come to expect from Michael Arrington, and I’m glad that I haven’t been let down.
What, pray tell, is your legal background? Other than merely insulting the views of anybody who disagrees with you?
I hate to break it to you, but any photography on PRIVATE property is ENTIRELY up to the landlord. They have the right to exclude you from the property for any reason, and can set any conditions on your use of their property. If this particular tradeshow allows photography then photography is allowed. But there’s no global rule that photographers have the right to photograph anything they want at private tradeshows on private property. There simply is no right. And there are plenty of other tradeshows that lawfully enforce such a rule.
@ Jeremy Johnstone
What’s your state bar number?
Oh, you don’t have one. Reading books written by photographs does not a lawyer make.
Wow. That’s very important news. Who gives a flying crap?