Etiquette of photographing and posting images of people?

[Manfred M]

We both live in Ontario. I've been approached many times in Toronto (where I live), Sault Ste. Marie (my hometown), and Ottawa (where my brother lives), and not once has it ever escalated to anything remotely involving a lawyer.

Just carry a couple of these in your camera bag. [Link to PDF file] I know all the pertinent laws, but when I pull one of these out and show it to the police, they've always backed away and told me to have a good day, much to the chagrin of the other party.

Chris - I do know of a couple of incidents, one involving a professional photograher that I know quite well (taking pictures of the US Embassy with a photography class from the local community college) and another involving an amateur that I know taking a picture of an OCTranspo bus (local city owned transit service) who were hassled by the police and by transit security.

In both cases, the photographers were well within their legal rights. In both cases law enforcement was not as enlightened as the ones you have run into. It's a bit like Colin's example above (#4); being right is not the only consideration. I enjoy taking pictures; I do not enjoy irritating and upsetting people.

That being said, a copy of the PDF will be going into my camera bag.

[davidedric]

Phil, now you are back in the UK be careful. Although it is not technically illegal to photograph a child, it IS illegal to photograph a child who is "in care" or subject to any kind of court protection - and of course you have no way of knowing, which is not an excuse in law. Best to ask before or after.

Dave

[dubaiphil]

Hi Dave

Well as a parent of 2 young children I wouldn't want that happening to my family, so I wouldn't be shooting that sort of material either.

[Glenn NK]

Why? You're legally in the right. Stand up for those rights or don't be upset when they officially become eroded.

What's the worst that's going to happen? The police get called and you have a chat about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

There are instances where the "Charter" won't help you - we had a discussion on this topic a few years ago (I can't find it).

A photographer in Canada photographed a young lady sitting in a public place (a fountain). No problem so far.

It was an excellent image - he entered it into a competition for which there was a monetary prize. The image was published and the young lady saw it. She sued him successfully in court. It wasn't the taking of the image that was the problem - the problem was that he gained financially in the use of her image - which she alone has the right to gain by (unless she had signed a legal document permitting the photographer to use her image for financial gain).

Colin may have some additional information on the use of models as I believe he does commercial work and likely has used models.

In any event, one cannot assume that there are no limits to a photographer's freedom.

Glenn

[John 2]

Phil, now you are back in the UK be careful. Although it is not technically illegal to photograph a child, it IS illegal to photograph a child who is "in care" or subject to any kind of court protection - and of course you have no way of knowing, which is not an excuse in law. Best to ask before or after.

Dave

There is increasingly, also the problem of local byelaws that cover places like Parks and Swimming Baths. Because there is no consistency from area to area, that's a minefield as well. Phil's view to me provides the most sensible test. If you wouldn't like it, why would others? On behalf of my local club, I had cause to look into the legalities a couple of year ago at the height of the controversy over the use by the police of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and by the time you look at the effect of both Statute and then Common Law, it gets quite involved. In the end, common sense has to rule the day.

[Venser]

She sued him successfully in court. It wasn't the taking of the image that was the problem - the problem was that he gained financially in the use of her image - which she alone has the right to gain by (unless she had signed a legal document permitting the photographer to use her image for financial gain).

This is incorrect. In Ontario, I can definitely take your photo and sell it for financial gain, I just can't use it to promote a product. There is nothing the subject can do. If that court case exist, I'd love to read the proceedings. I can't find anything online.

I know each province has its own peculiarities in relation to photographing strangers, so I'm only speaking in terms of the law pertaining to Ontario.

Edit - Just did some research and it looks like in BC, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, definitely have a privacy act which could be construed in court to protect its citizen from having their photos published, or used elsewhere for any use. Again, I've made it clear I was talking about Ontario, which does not have a privacy act which protects its citizens like the other provinces (I haven't checked the other provinces yet, but will by the end of the day).

Link to court case protecting Quebec citizens.
Aubrey v. Edition Vice-Versa Inc

[Glenn NK]

The case occurred in Quebec. It was published in a relatively small circulation Canadian photo magazine that I borrowed from the camera shop - can't recall the name.

I quoted directly from the article in a thread on this same topic several years ago. Can't find the post.

Unfortunately the photographer didn't realize what he did wasn't quite right.

Bottom line: I think Colin's and Manfred's comments are worth heeding no matter what the law says. Not every subject is gracious enough to refrain from making an uncomfortable scene, or even punching the photographer in the face.

Common sense is a better guide than legal rights in some situations.

Please note that I live in BC and used to live in SK.