Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/06/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I'm curious, when people refer to "publishing", does that include for example posting a picture on the web in say a PAW? charlie - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Atherton" <tim@KairosPhoto.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 1:01 PM Subject: RE: [Leica] Asking permission, KISS & the decisive moment > > I've heard that there's law like this in Quebec and in France. I just > > came from shooting the Canada Grand Prix, and I did lots of people shots > > with neither permission nor hassle, though I'll admit I wasn't so bold > > as I am on the streets of New York. I'm not particularly unruly, but in > > New York I know for a fact that my work is considered protected speech > > under the First Amendment. Elsewhere I display my friendly side a little > > more openly and no one seems to care. > > > > Gilbert > > > Hi Gilbert - the Quebec Constitution has a Right to Privacy in it (unlike > the rest of Canada), which means that in practice it is balanced against the > other rights of the Press and Expression. > > There was one major case. A Street Photographer had taken pictures of an > neighbourhood in Quebec, which included pictures of a young woman (sitting > on some steps I think). These photographs were later used in a publication > illustrating a story about that neighbourhood. The woman objected and the > case eventually went to the Supreme Court of Canada. They found in favour > of the woman (this being Canada, damages were minimal...) thought there were > a couple of strong dissenting opinions. The Supreme Court also set out > guidelines for use of images in publications. An obviously identifiable > person must give there permission if the image is published, unless (my > words here, I don't have the decision at hand anymore) the person is > guidelines associated with a news story - biker boss leaves courthouse, > politician announces resignation etc. Or a crowd/general scene where the > person is only a minor part of the picture. BUT, a photo of a girl > struggling with her umbrella in the wind to illustrate a generic story on > unseasonally high winds and rain (a newspaper staple!) could not be used > without her permission - getting the drift here? > > SO - there is nothing to say you can't take the photographs. You just can't > publish them without the persons permission unless they are "newsworthy". I > think this would also include exhibiting them in an exhibition - so, as in > France, it could dampen "street photography (there was a news story from > France recently about a well known photographer who photographed in his > native France for many years - don't recall who right now - whose major > exhibition had to be cancelled because many of the shots were taken without > permission. > > Now, most people probably don't even know or care. And even then, most would > bother to sue - and damages are unlikely to be high unless you totally > misrepresent the person. Sooo - maybe it's a cost of doing business! > > tim > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html