Steve M.
Mentor
Are you sure about that law? In America, the courts have ruled that if you are out in public, then there is no expectation of privacy, so you do not need a model release. We are not exactly an enlightened society in these matters (especially these days!!!), but I would be surprised if Canada didn't have a similar law. Not saying you do or don't, just wondering if your law is so fundamentally different from ours. Regardless of laws, I would probably go ahead and take the shots I wanted and let whatever happens happen. Over the years I have found that if you look like you know what you're doing, others assume that you do and leave you alone.
Now if, for instance, you are on a Hopi reservation in the US, then you are subject to different and much more stringent photography laws, but Native American lands are very different than the rest of the US.
Now if, for instance, you are on a Hopi reservation in the US, then you are subject to different and much more stringent photography laws, but Native American lands are very different than the rest of the US.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Unfortunately where I live, Italy (and I think most of EU countries) the law is exactly as described in the first post: allowed to take pictures (with some limitation, common sense) but absolutely not to publish or share, newspapers, webs, camera clubs, others.
This is probably due to the fact that through socials too many people have been seen (discovered?) in a place where they were supposed not to be.
Like you do not go to work because sick (officially) and you appear in the background of someone else photo in a pub drinking a beer, or even worse you say to your partner to be in office to do extra work and suddenly you appear in company of someone else...
I know years ago Philip-Lorca diCorcia won in a process claiming his work to be "art". But I am not sure what could have happened if instead of him a normal photographer without possibility to pay good attorneys had been involved...
robert
This is probably due to the fact that through socials too many people have been seen (discovered?) in a place where they were supposed not to be.
Like you do not go to work because sick (officially) and you appear in the background of someone else photo in a pub drinking a beer, or even worse you say to your partner to be in office to do extra work and suddenly you appear in company of someone else...
I know years ago Philip-Lorca diCorcia won in a process claiming his work to be "art". But I am not sure what could have happened if instead of him a normal photographer without possibility to pay good attorneys had been involved...
robert
Roger Hicks
Mentor
This is an impossible can of worms, because of "art". Unfortunately I've mislaid the reference but a few years ago a superior French court, quite possibly the Cour de Cassation itself, declared that pictures of commuters taken on the Paris Metro and used in a book were "art" and could therefore be published freely.
There's also "news". Is a report of a vide-grenier "news"? Arguably, yes. And finally there's the question of verbal permission and even of implied permission. The simple answer is that the law in most countries is an unenforceable mess.
Cheers,
R.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
For those living in the UK, on YouTube there is a channel called "Bad cop, no doughnut". This guy states the law and pisses off police officers by filming them.
intheviewfinder
Street
The U.S.A. precedent happened in New York State. Philip-Lorca diCorcia was sued for taking a photo of someone that was published in his book Heads. Here's a link to a Wikipedia citation.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Thanks. Barring those with bees in their bonnets (or possibly their yarmulkes) the risks are normally modest anyway: I am reminded of a wonderful observation about driving a motor car, which described it as "taking a very large number of very small risks".
The old English law was probably best: as long as the picture did not expose the subject to ridicule or contempt, it was OK.
Cheers,
R.
v0sh
Established
Here at Germany the law is about the same. The "black silhouette" is a common way to get around it. Personally, I don't care and just shoot my photos the way I want. Never got into trouble, even at 21mm + flash.
PKR
Mentor
Bike Tourist
Well-known
The acid test is usage. The dividing line here in the US is and has always been the editorial/commercial split. I think "art" may come down on the editorial side but I agree it's murky. If the image is used to advertise a product that is commercial usage and the image must have a release for persons or brands or proprietary designs. Almost all other usage, newspapers, magazines, web sites, books, is editorial.
Sometimes, end users will not put up resistance if a company or individual objects to the image, even if it's perfectly legal, in order to avoid a hassle.
Sometimes, end users will not put up resistance if a company or individual objects to the image, even if it's perfectly legal, in order to avoid a hassle.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
Oh, and I forgot to mention . . . This assumes the picture was taken in a public space. If you're on private property you'll likely need written permission from the owner before an editor would use your material.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Dick,
Sort of -- which is of course why you wrote "almost". But here's a moot point, in the strictest sense. At English law schools, "moots" are legal debates carried out by students, with the usual recourse to statute, precedent and oratory. The actors are commonly referred to as A, B, C, etc.
A has a web site on which there are pictures of people without written model releases. It is free and can be regarded as editorial or alternatively art and in some cases even news; sometimes as two or indeed all three of the above.
B is portrayed in a piece this site, but is unhappy to be portrayed there. Has he or she a basis for legal action? Consider the following possibilities: a report on a photography festival; a travel article; and a "how to" piece on (let us say) reflections.
If people like A's work, they can send him money via another site. Is this in fact commercial usage? Second, if it is (which is itself moot), can the free site be taken as a part of the same commercial usage?
Lawyers can make a case for or against almost anything, which is why so many people hate them. But these same people tend to forget that lawyers have to have clients. Most decent lawyers -- and the vast majority are decent -- will tell you exactly the same thing: NEVER get a lawyer involved until you have tried to sort things out between yourselves as decent, reasonable human beings. If one or the other of you is not a decent, reasonable human being, or worse, if neither of you is a decent, reasonable human being, you may need a lawyer.
Cheers,
R.
bushwick1234
Well-known
I just read last week this article that covers what was said here. Nothing to do with decency, but with money.
https://www.pdnonline.com/business-...hotography-and-the-law-what-you-need-to-know/
https://www.pdnonline.com/business-...hotography-and-the-law-what-you-need-to-know/
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Also (a) there are other countries in the world than the USA and (b) he appears to know or care very little about them. I'm not even convinced he's 100% on US law.
Cheers,
R.
bushwick1234
Well-known
Google
Google
https://petapixel.com/2016/03/07/an-interview-with-mickey-osterreicher-general-counsel-of-the-nppa/
I love Dr. Google, it is one of the most advanced innovations of science implemented in technology, you just type something and several results pop up in your screen.
https://petapixel.com/2016/03/07/an-interview-with-mickey-osterreicher-general-counsel-of-the-nppa/
Steve M.
Mentor
All you have to do is change your shooting style a little.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
I love Dr. Google, it is one of the most advanced innovations of science implemented in technology, you just type something and several results pop up in your screen.
https://petapixel.com/2016/03/07/an-interview-with-mickey-osterreicher-general-counsel-of-the-nppa/
And some of them may even be relevant in the USA. I'm not calling him ignorant or a fool: just limited and very US-oriented. There is no room in such an interview to be otherwise. See also post 31.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Big Ursus
Well-known
A long while ago, I asked this forum about the legal limits on publishing and/or exhibiting photographs of people that I took in Canada. The replies should still be on the site, but I believe I can sum them up: the law is similar in the U.S. and in Canada, with the exception of Quebec, where "the Quebec Human Rights Code grants all humans the right to their private life. For photography, this broadly-worded right allows each individual person in Quebec control over the use of their image (meaning, a photo of them)".
This is an extremely important question, and I'd like to thank Ko Fe for raising it again. And thanks, Vince Lupo, for your reply about the Canadian Federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act
Marcelo, the example you gave seems to be about a clear commercial use, and that always needs a model release.
PKR, I'm sure you're right: publishing = exhibiting.
Yea, Disaster_Area! Those posts are extremely clear and useful.
Johnwolf's link to the Langley Club post is especially useful because it deals with selling photographs of events or things that are copyrighted, as well as where Canadians can take pictures. That link also leads to what I just found at:
https://ambientlight.ca/laws/overview/what-can-i-publish/
In Canada, you can't publish/exhibit:
"1) A photo that you do not own.
2) A photo that would interfere with a large number of Canadian’s lives, impairs or threatens the Canadian Forces, national security or intelligence.
3) The name or photo of a child that is convicted or charged with an offence.
With the exception of the above, you can publish any other photograph." (Emphasis added)
I believe that means that, in most all of Canada, there are no legal limits on publishing and/or exhibiting non-commercial photos of people in public places and at public events.
However, galleries and publications can have their own rules, which are based on their individual policies, and not on the law.
Does anyone here have any experience with Canadian galleries and publications which have required model releases for non-commercial photos of people in public places and at public events?
This is an extremely important question, and I'd like to thank Ko Fe for raising it again. And thanks, Vince Lupo, for your reply about the Canadian Federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act
Marcelo, the example you gave seems to be about a clear commercial use, and that always needs a model release.
PKR, I'm sure you're right: publishing = exhibiting.
Yea, Disaster_Area! Those posts are extremely clear and useful.
Johnwolf's link to the Langley Club post is especially useful because it deals with selling photographs of events or things that are copyrighted, as well as where Canadians can take pictures. That link also leads to what I just found at:
https://ambientlight.ca/laws/overview/what-can-i-publish/
In Canada, you can't publish/exhibit:
"1) A photo that you do not own.
2) A photo that would interfere with a large number of Canadian’s lives, impairs or threatens the Canadian Forces, national security or intelligence.
3) The name or photo of a child that is convicted or charged with an offence.
With the exception of the above, you can publish any other photograph." (Emphasis added)
I believe that means that, in most all of Canada, there are no legal limits on publishing and/or exhibiting non-commercial photos of people in public places and at public events.
However, galleries and publications can have their own rules, which are based on their individual policies, and not on the law.
Does anyone here have any experience with Canadian galleries and publications which have required model releases for non-commercial photos of people in public places and at public events?