I would tend to agree. However, when it's done specifically for the sale of the image of your specific property, and for global distribution for anyone to view anywhere, it's a whole new game. Privacy is arguably infringed, liability possibly incurred by the distributor of the images, and, as I stated before, the economic opportunity created by one's unique image, capitalized upon, argues for a share in the return for the titleholder of the object of that image.
Here's the nub in our over-exposed society, IMHO.
Don't know if I can explain this fully, but since the advent of the web, all types of info is now readily available to folks that either wouldn't (shouldn't?) normally see it, or specifically target and use said info for their own profit or purpose contrary to the wishes of the owner. This Google trespass is one, another is the wholesale uploads of "Public Records" to the web for nefarious purpose.
Back in the 70's, Gannett printed five full pages of full names and addresses of every Concealed Carry Holder in Monroe County, NY while they (Gannett) was beating the drums to have all weapons removed from all 'civilians'. Now, anyone could have personally gone to County Records and perused the records, no problem; but for the local newsrag to do it, and collate the records culled from all the towns and villages - in my mind - was a violation of the privacy those CCW folks expected. You can bet that the list made some criminals happy; first to know which places to avoid, or which ones to 'score'. Of course, Gannett hid behind the First Amendment, claiming it was in the public's 'right to know'.
I don't know what the full answer is, but I commend these folks in staying the course, and getting a solid conviction against Google.