John Lawrence
Well-known
Sorry to hear about this.
I often wonder if in the vast majority of cases the real reason behind outbursts like these have little to do with photography - the person just uses the photographer as a scapegoat for their pent up anger, frustration, stress etc. , which is most likely as a result of a row with their spouse, trouble at work, financial problems etc.
John
markjwyatt
Well-known
I suspect that is a separate issue from whether taking a photograph with the mounted camera is permissible. The tripod takes space and causes congestion, etc.
skopar steve
Well-known
I totally agree.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I have a copy of "The Photographer's Rights" in each of my bags. It details the various things that we can and cannot do in general. Thus prepared for a confrontation, I've never had one.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I never had a problem using a tripod in public spaces while doing wedding photography in the 1980s and 1990s in Ontario Canada.
I doubt that things have changed as far as using a tripod in a public space to support a still camera,even after the hullabaloo and lessened freedoms and
the paranoia social engineering agenda on Joe Public after the 9/11 operation.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
Not any more.
In the Supreme Court of Canada case of Ryan Jarvis, the Supreme Court of Canada said that it depends on the privacy expectations of the subject, the way in which the pictures are taken, and the purpose of taking the pictures.
“ Circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy for the purposes of s. 162(1) of the Criminal Code are circumstances in which a person would reasonably expect not to be the subject of the type of observation or recording that in fact occurred. The inquiry should take into account the entire context in which the impugned observation or recording took place. Relevant considerations may include (1) the location the person was in when she was observed or recorded, (2) the nature of the impugned conduct (whether it consisted of observation or recording), (3) awareness of or consent to potential observation or recording, (4) the manner in which the observation or recording was done, (5) the subject matter or content of the observation or recording, (6) any rules, regulations or policies that governed the observation or recording in question, (7) the relationship between the person who was observed or recorded and the person who did the observing or recording, (8) the purpose for which the observation or recording was done, and (9) the personal attributes of the person who was observed or recorded. This list of considerations is not exhaustive and not every consideration will be relevant in every case.”
The case involved a high school teacher who secretively took pictures and video of his clothed students, at the school, using a pen camera. (The students were clothed, but some shots were of cleavage, others of chest areas.) Everyone would likely agree he is a creepy perv who should be fired. What was at issue was whether his behaviour violated the voyeurism section in Canada’s Criminal Code. The Ontario Court of Appeal said it did not, holding that the students did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the school. It pointed to the fact that there were security cameras around the school as one indication of that. The Supreme Court of Canada was clear that the presence of cameras in the school for surveillance did not mean there was no expectation of privacy.
It introduces a lot of uncertainty into the area. What is surreptitious, for one. Spy cameras are obvious. What about hipshots? Long telephoto lenses? Framing without the camera at eye-level; quickly raising the camera to shoot, and then bringing it back down?
Although it concerned voyeurism, where sexual purpose is an element, it is likely that its analysis of privacy will be extended to other areas.
Definitely not light reading, but for those interested, the case is here:
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/17515/index.do
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Last thing I would bring here is canucistan cangaroo courts.
My comment was based on my interactions with normal businesses, not left occupied schools and courts here.
I was really hoping to read your comment based on love shacks photos you take in Totonto.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I don’t understand what “love shacks photos” mean, or which photos you are talking about.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Most of the time if someone wants to bother me, they ask if I work for the county. I guess in my old age I look more like a civil servant now.
PF
PF
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
All of those Toronto places where people getting drinks, music and dance.
Those places you are taking/showing pictures.
This is what is interesting from your experience. Do you need to get hold of the person in charge to take photos?
emraphoto
Veteran
with respect, could we leave the binary political ideology out of RFF? it's dumped on us by the bucket load everywhere else
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I don't, but these are mostly places I've been going to for a long time. If the owner, or any staff, told me to stop, I would. The more difficult issues are
the subjects of the pictures. If I sense they don't want their picture taken, I stop. I also hold back from posting some, but it's sometimes a difficult decision. People aren't always dancing with "the person that brung ya".