[Leica] Quebec reason for suit! Can. Press photog.

[ted grant <75501.3002@compuserve.com>]

Ladies and gentlemen! enough already!!!!!

Here is the story direct from my Montreal based Canadian Press photgrapher
friend Paul Chaisson. In other words he spells out the case with details
instead of us discussing something we didn't have all the actual
information about.

Considering this topic has taken a considerable amount of space over the
weekend and yes I admit I was a contributor and should have kept my mouth
shut until I ran the story by Paul for some facts instead of comparing
Canada and the US law makers rules and regulations of each Nation.


Paul's post:
<<<<<<<<<<  Ted,
    The picture is of a girl who was 17 years-old at the time sitting on
the steps of a building on Sherbrooke street in 1987. It was published a
year later in a literrary magazine that sold 722 copies. Friends of the
girl saw the picture and according to her laughed at her. She sued the
magazine for $2,000.00 for dammage, yea right.
    It is a Supreme Court ruling that applies only to Quebec as it is based
on the Quebec Charter of Rights, the charter by which the complaint was
filed. The ruling applies to stand-alone features not related to a specific
news event. A person taking part in a demo, attending a Santa Claus parade,
a baseball game or events as such, can expect to have his or her photo
taken without the photographer's concent. You would need concent to publish
a photo of a person sitting in a park reading a book, providing that person
is the main focus of the picture.
   The ruling does not stop you from taking pictures without concent but to
publish them without permission. But there are grey areas. What if you are
doing a feature on public transportation, or the homeless or a hospital
emergency ward, etc.?  What about television? Probably the easiest way out
of this is asking the person's name but at times that could be a problem. 
As for stock pictures, I don't think it changes anything as stock
photographers already should get written concent.>>>>>>>>

So there you have it from a Canadian Press photographer who has to cope
with whatever it is he has to cope with under this particular ruling.

ted