Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This seems to be a recurring subject, and it appears that while frustrating to many of us, the law is relatively clear on what rights we have and what rights property owners have. However, more important to me a a couple of associated issues. First, there are only a few places where it is *illegal* to *take* a photograph. The best example I know is in a court room (or court house) where (at least in Canada) you can be found instantly in contempt and literally "go directly to jail". Oddly, different court houses (again in Canada) have differing rules. Some allow no photography anywhere (and fellow Americans should note that cameras in the court room in Canada are almost unheard of). Other court houses allow photography in designated areas, varying from a specific, signed, location to "downstairs". It is also quite risky to photograph military installations anywhere. Just being present in the wrong place can get you arrested. Taking pictures makes it worse. OTOH, photography is encouraged at air shows and the like. But really, can't we can walk into Home Depot or The Mall and take photos to our hearts content until someone tells us to stop? There is no *law* (in the US or Canada, or the UK) against taking pictures in the Mall, HD, or at concerts. What we have is a property "owner" (rightfully) restricting the privilege of access based on some terms. If I am taking pictures in Home Depot, and they tell me to stop and I don't, I'm certain they can evict me, probably even bar me from return - but I have broken no law, I also imagine it would be very difficult for them to take any action against me, as I did no damage and they suffered no loss. I know I'm on thin ice here (I'm no lawyer) but I'm sure I'll be corrected :-) Further, they have no right to my film (that would be theft on their part). I think this is an important point. Sign or no sign, I can take pictures until told to stop. The sign is just an interim measure (at Fry's it appears no one is around to tell you :-) Finally, many of you may be aware that Canada and the UK both routinely "prohibit the identification" of some individuals - most typically a minor victim of a sexually-related offence. Note this does not prohibit you from photographing this person (sometimes the perpetrator is a family member, and therefore their identification is also prohibited) but only the *act* of identifying them to others (i.e. publication of this photograph). Similarly, the new French laws on privacy and the recent Québec ruling on publication of an individual's likeness both appear to be directed toward publication - - not the act of photographing. To me, this means I can photograph what I want when I want in most cases, but must consider carefully what I do with those images later, as any professional would. Nomex on Steve Patriquen London __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/