I hate to be the one...balljarJune 23 2004, 20:07:44 UTC
...that always tries to rain on your parade.
I read the info in the link - consider the fact that it is a U.S. publication, and decidedly biased.
I did a quick web search, and found a couple things closer to home;
From the University of Waterloo Graphics Department - "UW legal counsel has advised that taking and publishing photos of individuals without their consent does, in fact, constitute an invasion of privacy. While it’s not necessary to attempt to get release and consents from everyone who would appear in the background of a picture, for a principal subject such a consent should be obtained"
And - from closer to your home - quoted in the University of Toronto Law Journal, under the title of "PRIVACY AND THE REASONABLE PARANOID: THE PROTECTION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC PLACES" - "On the other hand, American law is not the only potential influence on the Canadian common law courts regarding privacy in public places. In Quebec, under civil law, quite a different approach has been taken. In Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa Inc.,(79) the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a decision of the Quebec courts awarding $2 000 damages to a young woman whose photograph was published in an artistic magazine. The photograph was taken without her consent as she sat on a step outside a building on a Montreal street. The Court held that the publication constituted a fault under Quebec law, as a fault is committed as soon as an identifiable image of a person is published without consent, unless justified by the public interest.(80) The majority also believed there was sufficient proof of damage. The majority judgment discussed situations in which the right to privacy in a public place would be outweighed by the public interest, such as where the person appears in only an incidental manner and is not the principal subject of the photograph.(81) However, such situations were seen as the exception rather than the rule, and the view that there was an unlimited right to publish photographs taken in a public place was expressly rejected.(82)
Anyway - all I'm saying is, most likely, with your charm and approach, you will continue to have a long and glorious career of taking great shots of all sorts of folks on the street. However, when push comes to shove, I would tend to err on the side of prudence - and have the phone number of your lawyer handy!
I love the title and thank-you for doing some research on this as I had no idea where to look.
That Montreal case really hit home especially if it was done in an artistic type magazine.. On the other hand it went all the way to the supreme court and the final judgement was only $2000.00. A mere slap on the wrist. And it was done in a public magazine. I'm not quite hitting any publications as of yet ;)
Also if you read my comments above to Nomi I am trying to be discreet etc etc..
Nevertheless this is a good "heads up".
But there's more and I like to see things from a practical point of view:
1) these pictures are only in my journal and I haven't yet published any "face" in any public community. { I plan to later though with "certain pics"} I could also start locking them up... I'm not paranoid...
2) there are very few people from Montreal on my friends list to start with so the chances of someone seeing a picture of themselves or others is minimum
3) lot of things you see are not necessarily as they appear {like in a lot of the bullshit that goes one here in LJ land...} For example:
You may think I was in this girls face when taking this picture here:
Many of pictures were all "public" figures so to speak like the one above.
4) carrying that membership card around gives a fake aura of photographic authority, mind you it could work against me but most people see it the other way...
I read the info in the link - consider the fact that it is a U.S. publication, and decidedly biased.
I did a quick web search, and found a couple things closer to home;
From the University of Waterloo Graphics Department - "UW legal counsel has advised that taking and publishing photos of individuals without their consent does, in fact, constitute an invasion of privacy. While it’s not necessary to attempt to get release and consents from everyone who would appear in the background of a picture, for a principal subject such a consent should be obtained"
And - from closer to your home - quoted in the University of Toronto Law Journal, under the title of "PRIVACY AND THE REASONABLE PARANOID: THE PROTECTION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC PLACES" - "On the other hand, American law is not the only potential influence on the Canadian common law courts regarding privacy in public places. In Quebec, under civil law, quite a different approach has been taken. In Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa Inc.,(79) the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a decision of the Quebec courts awarding $2 000 damages to a young woman whose photograph was published in an artistic magazine. The photograph was taken without her consent as she sat on a step outside a building on a Montreal street. The Court held that the publication constituted a fault under Quebec law, as a fault is committed as soon as an identifiable image of a person is published without consent, unless justified by the public interest.(80) The majority also believed there was sufficient proof of damage. The majority judgment discussed situations in which the right to privacy in a public place would be outweighed by the public interest, such as where the person appears in only an incidental manner and is not the principal subject of the photograph.(81) However, such situations were seen as the exception rather than the rule, and the view that there was an unlimited right to publish photographs taken in a public place was expressly rejected.(82)
Anyway - all I'm saying is, most likely, with your charm and approach, you will continue to have a long and glorious career of taking great shots of all sorts of folks on the street. However, when push comes to shove, I would tend to err on the side of prudence - and have the phone number of your lawyer handy!
Reply
I love the title
and thank-you for doing some research on this as
I had no idea where to look.
That Montreal case really hit home especially if it was
done in an artistic type magazine.. On the other hand it went
all the way to the supreme court and the final judgement was only
$2000.00. A mere slap on the wrist. And it was done in a public magazine.
I'm not quite hitting any publications as of yet ;)
Also if you read my comments above to Nomi I am trying to be discreet etc etc..
Nevertheless this is a good "heads up".
But there's more and I like to see things from a practical point of view:
1) these pictures are only in my journal and I haven't yet published any "face" in any public community. { I plan to later though with "certain pics"} I could also start locking them up... I'm not paranoid...
2) there are very few people from Montreal on my friends list to start with so the chances of someone seeing a picture of themselves or others is minimum
3) lot of things you see are not necessarily as they appear {like in a lot of the bullshit that goes one here in LJ land...}
For example:
You may think I was in this girls face when taking this picture here:
but the reality of the picture is here:
http://bm8.net/music_videos/DSCN0267.MOV
Many of pictures were all "public" figures so to speak like the one above.
4) carrying that membership card around gives a fake aura of photographic authority, mind you it could work against me but most people see it the other way...
and lastly it appears a LOT of people like having their picture taken and see it as a compliment...
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mrbad/1189948.html
Again though I thank you for this great input. I'll be even more cautious.
Reply
Leave a comment