| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/21/2006 01:24:24 PM · #1 |
I was recently working with a guy who used to shoot pictures for a newspaper (he doesn't anymore, nor has he in a long time), and he said that while it is legal to take pictures of anyone in a public place, it's not legal to post/print them without their legal consent.
Now, he can sometimes act like he knows everything, but often doesn't, so I just wanted to check with you guys.
The reason is because I have made my first print available and it is a candid shot. Not that I am too worried, but I still want to be sure.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 01:36:46 PM · #2 |
Apparently Quebec is the only province with this law.
Shot without consent |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 01:40:49 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Apparently Quebec is the only province with this law.
Shot without consent |
Cool, thanks.
Note To Self: Don't shoot candid's in Quebec.
Ok, info logged. Time to go take pictures of unsuspecting people while hiding in a garbage can...
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 01:41:54 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Apparently Quebec is the only province with this law.
|
the difference between English Common law & French Common law & what constitues privacy ..
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 01:43:34 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Apparently Quebec is the only province with this law.
Shot without consent |
Damn, thanks for posting...I'll have to be careful what I shoot this weekend :) |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 01:53:21 PM · #6 |
I would counter-sue the person for intruding upon my otherwise-empty streetscape, rendering the photo unusable, and depriving me of potential income; I'd interpret it as a protection racket, where you'd have to pay people to stay out of your photos ...
If a person's appearance is their private property, then that's where they should keep it, and stop interfering with my photographing a public place. |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 02:23:00 PM · #7 |
that would be very tough to work around from a news perspective.
while many photos are pre-arranged for the newspaper, ie. permission is understood ahead of time, there are some shots were consent is simply not possible to get.
although approaching a subject after shooting a pic to ID them correctly usually indicates you're planning on using the image elsewhere.
Message edited by author 2006-07-21 14:24:07. |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 03:12:37 PM · #8 |
There is also the issue of using for news, versus commerical use. ie a picture of a skier who turns out to be 'famous' you need their permission to sell it for commerical purposes. Stock agencies and even contests normally request a model release. I believe there is a rule about more then five people in the picture don't need a model release from them all... again would need to make sure of that too. I would think if you are selling the print, that puts it into commerical use.
oh I found this
//www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009s0V
which reads:
Andrew Somerset , oct 22, 2004; 04:29 p.m.
Substantially the same as in the US. You are covered by consitutional guarantees of free expression, but commercial uses require releases as in the US.
The substantial difference is in the area of privacy. In Quebec, the human rights code guarantees an individual the right to control of his own image. The Supreme Court has ruled that this means permission is necessary for editorial use except if the individual is a celebrity or if the photo is a hard news photo. If a person is in a news photo, however, they have to be the subject of the news, or their permission is required.
In one recent case, a lawyer sued the Montreal Gazette after it ran a photo of the front of a hotel, in which he was visible leaving the hotel carrying a bag. His secretary saw the photo and jokingly asked why he was leaving the hotel in the middle of the day, the implication being he'd been there with a woman. The Gazette argued that the photo was a news photo. They lost. (Note that although his complaint was harm to his reputation, he could not have won this as a libel case.)
So you have to be careful in Quebec.
Message edited by author 2006-07-21 15:21:33. |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 04:41:29 PM · #9 |
I think in most places in the world, you can publish a photo in editorial ways, but cannot sell said photo for use as stock, or art. For that you need a release.
-Hideo |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 04:45:15 PM · #10 |
Is this right then? (Excluding Quebec from this)
Candid Picture not being sold - ok
Candid Picture being sold with signed model release form - ok
Candid Picture posted on the internet not being sold - ok
Candid Picture being sold with no release form - not ok
|
|
|
|
07/21/2006 04:50:50 PM · #11 |
I believe you ARE allowed to make money from the shots, but you can't use them for advertising without permission. That's where the "commercial use" part causes confusion. For example, I could take a candid of you and sell prints to hang on someone's wall, but I couldn't use same candid in an advertisement for my new singles club.
There was a thread a couple months ago that clarified a lot, but of course I can't find it when I want it. Anyone else remember? I wouldn't want to steer anyone wrong. |
|
|
|
07/21/2006 04:51:59 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by AlphaTrooper:
Is this right then? (Excluding Quebec from this)
Candid Picture not being sold - ok
Candid Picture being sold with signed model release form - ok
Candid Picture posted on the internet not being sold - ok
Candid Picture being sold with no release form - not ok |
pretty much! :-) Assuming the pictures where taken while on public property :-)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/06/2025 05:41:55 AM EDT.
