What is Digg?70 Comments
- chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22technically, it was quebec. they're.. a little different.. than the rest of canada ;)
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21Maybe in Canada, otherwise tabloids in America would be getting sued for a hell of alot more than they are now.
Public place = No expectation of privacy (even if $$$ is involved) - nogami, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15*** Just to clarify, this law only applies in Quebec, and not the rest of Canada. ***
That's why Canadians often see many promotions and giveaways and such that say "Offer valid in Canada, except for Quebec", because their courts work differently and what's legal in the rest of the country may not be legal in their province.
For the rest of Canada, you have no _reasonable expectation of privacy_ in a public location, so people can take your pictures in a park, or on a beach, or anywhere else that's public. If you SELL the picture, the person photographed can still sue you for a piece of the action if they didn't sign a model release, but there's nothing wrong with non-commercial use.
N. - antron, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19I'm not worried. I mean I take all my pictures in my basement.
Now then: it puts the lotion in the basket or it gets the hose again. - Gardenhead, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Technically, you do need a model release if you sell your picture for money, I believe. Otherwise, the model can ask for however much of the profit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13too bad for canadians, but here in america I can take a picture of almost whatever.
...I think. - Unicron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I thik you'll find that in the before-time, the long-long ago, that that quote actually came from silence of the lambs. On an unrelated note, enjoy your big boy hair when it comes through and remember: don't trust Scott Tenorman!
- ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Here in the US though, it's a sticky situation. There was a lawsuit about a dispute between a top photographer and an Orthodox Jew whose picture he surreptitiously took at Times Square. He used no model release at all because he wouldn't have gotten one anyway from the subject. Yet a judge ruled that it constituted "art".
Read more about it here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1139565912319 - MrVisible, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10What about if I take a phenomenal picture of a total stranger and get offered money for it? Would I need a model release? What if I don't have one?
- Shmoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7How many stupid irrelevant comments are you planning on making in response to this story?
- gmerin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12don't take this seriously: this occurred in Canada, and in Quebec. it's not the real world so nothing that happens there should be taken as indicative of conditions where real humans live. Quebec is the Disneyland France would have built if France had the initiative to create anything useful or entertaining anymore, but it's not "real".
- MetricLobster, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16quote
Ah Canada. Failing at freedom one blazingly stupid step at a time.
as opposed to to America (I'm assuming that's where your from.... Americans seam to spout the word freedom at every opportunity....) who are currently what spying on there own people in direct violation of your constitution.... who are influencing other countries to violate there own laws because there not pro American business and (here's the big one) are invading other countries and killing there citizens because they do not share the same philosophical view as your country GOD BLESS AMERICA.....and screw everyone that has a different view on how life should be lived
for those not making annoying comments about the "failures" of Canada please realize my comments are not directed at you so please excuse me for MY comments - Aidenag, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7 It is PERFECTLY LEGAL! to do so... so long as you dont profit commercially from its use.. You can however use "Editorial" photo's without consent..
Anytime you see a picture in the news of a protest or gathering, you think they get everyone who had a recognizable face to consent? hell no lol...
Editorial is the word of the day for everyone reading this.... as long as its bieng used for editorial/news purposes its ok.. and if you just upload it online to a photosharing place its ok...
and yeah this doesnt mean you can go take pics of angelina jolie naked through her bedroom window.. or a family in there backyard having a BBQ..
This just means your in the clear to do such things as say take a picture of a Marathon runner(s) sell it to your local newspaper for money.. all without consent from anyone in the pictures.. - zengonzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5
All of them, I'd wager. - Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Well thats pretty lame. It seems like theres nothing to fight for anymore in court cases. All of the meaningful cases happened like decades ago, and now we have supreme court cases about gold-digging pornstars trying to get money from their soon-to-be dead husband.
- mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's true, about the endorsement. This was recently put to test in a court case (by recently I mean in the last 5 or 6 years or so). Canon is pretty much the only [major] camera company to make white body lenses. There was a picture of a row of maybe 20 photographers on the sideline of a professional sporting event - football I think - and all but 1 or 2 had those distinctive white telephoto lenses on their cameras.
Canon took that photo and use it in an ad with the caption "Professionals who know use Canon" or something like that. The people in the picture sued Canon for using the shot without their consent, but lost because they were not clearly identifiable in the ad (it was a distant wide angle shot, and most had hoods up against the cold/radi). Since no one could look at the ad and say "hey, that's George, he must really love Canon lenses!" it didn't amount to a "personal endorsement", and since the stadium they were in was a public place (as in you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy there) Canon was free to use the photo.
I'm not sure what that proves, but it is a bit interesting! :P - mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6In the United States, you have the right to take pictures of almost anything and anyone. The only time you can't take someone's picture is when the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, taking a picture through a living room window of a person inside would not be okay, because the person in the house has a reasonable expectation that they are in the privacy of their own home. A person sitting out in public is allowing everyone around them to see them with their own two eyes, and there's absolutely nothing they can do about having their picture taken, because they have implicitly consented to being seen by the public. If you are allowed inside a private business, you can take all the pictures you want, but if security asks you to leave, you have the legal obligation to do so. But if security asks for your camera or film/memory card, you do not have the legal obligation to give it up. But since it is a private business, they may sue you if you publish the photos. That doesn't mean you can't legally take them.
Generally, though, if you are going to be making a profit off of the photos, you have to make a reasonable effort to get releases from anyone that you can. But if you're photographing a building, and there are 30 people walking by on the sidewalk in front, it's unreasonable to expect the photographer to be able to catch all 30 people and get releases.
This is my understanding as a photographer and cinematographer. I'm sure there are many more specific nuances of the law, but basically, if you can see it in public with your own two eyes, you can take a photo of it, and even publish it. - mikebeauchamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I just did a bit of research on the Quebec girl thing, since I actually had a hunch it might have been *****. But I guess it's true.
http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html
http://www.adidem.org/articles/privacy1.html
I haven't been able to find the picture itself, but it seems to be described as a picture pretty much of the girl, which is something I would definitely get signed consent before publishing. If the picture was specifically of the building and she happened to be sitting there, or if lots of people were in the picture.. different story. Stupid I know, but that's what happens when society is too stupid to function for itself without laws, and needs a gov't pushing corporate agendas based on making money off of copyright and images. You don't need police and laws , governments and courts to solve something like this. just ask "hey, can I take a picture of you?"
The sad thing is this girl probably has a crapload of pictures of herself on her ***** myspace page... "teehee".
If a photographer comes up and takes your picture, you should be flattered that he thought you were interesting enough to photograph. If you're concerned about privacy, fight the government sticking surveillence cameras everywhere, not some dude with a 35mm.
Mike - greg9683, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, a picture is one thing. If someone makes you look bad or portrays your character bad through photoshop/manipulation, you can sue them for libel. But see, the point is, that you needed photoshop or some software to manipulate. There's a difference there. The photo in its raw form, if it was taken in public place is perfectly legal.
- drewpost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Avoid taking pictures of the Amish.... they kinda don't like that :-)
- ITDefPat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2OK, I've got nothin . . but let me summarize (a lot of silly comments :(
in private, persons usually have right to privacy.
But in public, no real restrictions unless person stops you. but if already shot, done is done.
unless for profit (i.e. of a model), no real restrictions. for profit (model) usually needs a signed release from the person being photographed, unless they are a public official or persona (i.e. politician, famous, movie stars, etc.). This is how the paparazzi get paid.
generally, US goes this way. expect UK and the commonwealth to be similar, including canada except Quebec (looks like obezyana had good links). Expect similarities in France and Quebec. Speaking of paparazzi, anyone know what the rules are in Italy (rotfl).
But still you have to be careful so that issues like libel, slander and/or defamation dont' arise.
I remember a Girl who sued the guys from Girls Gone Wild. Claimed they violated her right of privacy because they filmed her in public in New Orleans during Mardi Gras (pre-Katrina, sigh :( where she was extremely drunk and exposing her breasts.... As i recall this inDUHvidual lost her suit. So, as long as you don't take shots of womens' breasts in public...nah, forget that - I go to bike week too much (check out daytonatie.com! (sorry for the plug - love Tie).... Oh, now I remember my point - dont take pictures of inDUHviduals!
Of course I see a counter-suit for being sued over women's bare breast photos - since men's breasts are fair game, that constitues gender discrimination (take them off ladies). Anyways, even totally nude women isn't indecent (based on "exposure of genitals"), since women't reproductive organs are internal (this is another one proven in court),,, now what was my point....? OH, you shouldn't be sued for photographing nude women (or posting their pics) because it isn't indecent or defamatory. I LOVE ART, don't you?
of course, this might not be valid in Quebec - might be kinda cold to be nude. which is why all you everyone comes to florida (leave the clothes back home).
Now what was my point....? - nordberg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Quebec has a very different law system then the rest of the country. It has the Quebec Civil Code, based on French history and not British. It is the only province with a civilian law system.
- obezyana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Surprised this hasn't been brought up yet:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm - photographer's rights in America
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php - photographer's rights in the UK
http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml - photographer's rights in Australia - also includes information (though not much) on New Zealand, Canada, USA, England, and France
All of them are written by lawyers, and they seem to pretty much agree that you're allowed to take pictures in public without anyone's consent, unless one person is the main focus of the photograph. - dougbdl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I reckon in the USA that if you are in a public place you can have your picture taken. That is why the stars hate the paparazzi, because they cannot just sue the crap out of them.
Now I do not think you could use that photo to endorse something. If George Clooney had his picture snapped while drinking a Pepsi, I don't think Pepsi Co could use that in an ad.
Besides a remember a strip joint in Florida a few months ago that the residents wanted out of their town. They would snap all the patron's pictures and post them on the web as a way to shame them from going there. - mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You have no idea what you are talking about. A security guard cannot make you delete any pictures you took, or destroy any film you have exposed. They can ASK you to do that, but you don't have to. Since they are a security guard they are presumably guarding some sort of private property, but one that has an open invitation to the public; like a mall. They can tell you to leave, and if you don't have you arrested for trespassing, but they can't destroy any photographs you've already taken.
- leisuremonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can't speak to the legalities, but I did have an uncomfortable situation of my own. See the image and read the story here...
http://highlysubjective.com/index.php?showimage=55 - trekkie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Tried taking a picture of a refinery, or a government building recently?
Good luck with that. - apu95, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Some laws in Quebec are retarded and this is definitely one of them. I live here in Montreal and the amount of stupid laws here is unbelieveable.
For example, the language laws that they have here are completely insane. If you own a store, the sign for your store has to have the title in French and English. On top of that, the French title has to be 1.5 times the size of the English one. The language crap also applies to schools, but I won't delve further into that...
Giving an $8000 fine for taking a picture of someone is completely insane, that would mean that any kind of paparazzi could be taken down, and if you're visiting Quebec, you have to make sure that any pictures you take don't include outside people in them, since it could potentially cost you that amount of money. - Seidoger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I like using c AND k
Much sexier.
Or only K for added drama - SniperSlap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I recall reading about this in a book at a local library (Winnipeg, Manitoba).
The laws about that sort of stuff in Canada seemed more relaxed than in the United States. Although Quebec may be different, I think in the rest of Canada, you can take pictures of anything you want in public.
If anyone is interested in this subject, look up "photography" and "law" in your library. There's this little book that had piles of information. I know I have the title written down somewhere.... - Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I cannot hear that phrase anymore without getting this song stuck in my head for at least a few days
http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=23 - hankyone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Tabarnak! ca pas dallure!
- Ensnared, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As quite a few people obvioulsy fail to realise: it depends on the laws in the country in question.
Seems to me the laws in Quebec aren't too different from the laws here - if a person is a part of the picture, it's legal to do with as you wish, but if the main motif of the picture is an individual, publishing it requires the consent of that individual. That's why a group of people is usually ok to publish, as is a picture of a building even if it has some people in front of it. In this case, the girl on the steps was the motif, not the building or the steps themselves (I haven't seen the picture, I'm just making an assumption).
On occasion you'll probably have pictures where the individual may or may not be the main motif of the picture, in which case I suppose people could sue, but lawsuits hasn't quite become a potential fast-track to wealth here the way it has in certain other parts of the world. - upsilonh24, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4What you don't seem to realize, my friend, is that Québec is a french territory and we're surrounded by english people. If we want French to survive in Québec, we have to protect it, and we will. Remember that since the bill 101, the only official language in Québec is French. Consider yourself lucky you are still able to advertise in English.
- danimal84, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3well I guess I'm in the clear. I really haven't taken any pictures of underage teens having sex at bus stops on military bases for my own sexual gratification but now that you bring it up..
Great tips but this kinda seems like obvious common sense. Then again these days I guess even that has become rare. Yeah W '04! - mickoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1LOLLL!!! on dit tabarnacle!
- Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes and we all know that France did not go to the south pacific and some islands in the Carribbean and force the natives there to conform to their ways.
- nikkesen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People are overracting too much these days, especially now that sueing ever Joe-Smoe is becoming a hot money maker.
- hydrozen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I still don't fully don't understand that law. I live in Quebec and last winter after a huge snowstorm a picture of me trying to clear the snow off my car got published in the newspaper. I was fully recognizable... in fact, a friend of mine recognized me and told me to check out the newspaper and buy a scrapbook! I remember seeing the photographer but I didn't know he was working for a newspaper and he did not ask my permission for anything. I thought it was pretty cool to have my picture in the newspaper, but I always wondered if I could have sued their asses or something.
- turntabletux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't want random people taking shots of me. Especialy without me knowing, but then again I wouldn't know heh. I would rather not see my picture altered somewhere on the internet. :[
-Ant - vtwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hey dude, Tabarnac is written with a C not a K. Learn how to write your own rude words ;)
- vtwin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1tower31:
French and French Canadians are as much alike as Brits and Americans are... Please don't mix them up.
Do you call Americans "the English" and say they like to drink tea? - jdeehr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I had a crazy situation myself. I was walking down town in my city, on ths sidewalk. I stood in the street and took a picture of an Antique store. They had murch outside laying next to the building. I had my fisheye lens and I thought it would be a really neat shot. The owner was completley irrate with me because I didn't ask her to take a picture of the OUTSIDE of her store. I was on a public street and sidwalk. She started spouting laws and "she ownd the store"...blah blah..I just walked away. I was a little disappointed that she was such a bitch about it.
I did have this idea of creating my own "photo company", generating a lanyard badge of the false company..cause lord knows, if you have a lanyard, you are official. Then have my longest and most expensive looking lens and camera combo, and a big black camera bag strapped to me. I guarantee if you try this, NO ONE will hassle you. In fact, strangers might pose. Its the 40 y.o guys that have 3 MP Sony Cyber Shots and are taking pictures of kids at the park that worry's people...but with my get up..you are sure to be hassle free ;) - mickoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@gmerin : how can you say such of bad statements about Quebec? It is a wonderful place to live, and by the way Quebec was a France colony BEFORE you English people made war to conquer us. So don't whine about your creation, you modified our society.
- mickoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@wonk.. Québec has already made an independant budget working fine. Your statements are bad.
- Daisuke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Suing for Gay marriage? Suing the government to stop spying on you? (either of those only if you live in the states) Those are pretty reasonable cases for court that would certainly do some good...
- robmeist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Of course it's OK to take a picture of someone in public as long as it's not up their skirt etc...
The problem comes when that picture taken in public is put on the internet, tv, newspaper, etc...
When I think of Public, I think of Immediate public, as in the people right there that I can see in front of me. I don't want my picture floating on the net without my consent. I choose to go out where I don't mind being seen. - Darwinian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You're allowed to take pictures of anyone and anything in a public place, how do you think paparrazzi's work?
- ersnyder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This happened to me at the new Seattle Library. I was taking some modeling shots with a tripod and a light stand early in the morning just outside the doors (but not blocking the doors). They shut me down because I had equipment set up and said I needed written permission to have my stuff set up there.
So much for a PUBLIC library.
I got my shots anyway, they nabbed me on my last picture. Yessssssss. - smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1don't forget about the law that dictates the colour margarine has to be there, white!
To protect the dariy farmers from confused consumers :) -
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is