quadtones
Established
Arkansas is my adopted home state, these past 23 years, and amongst a lot of others, I submitted to our Governor serial emails, calls, etc. exhorting him to veto this bill, which ultimately he did.
That said, I recently had occasion to withdraw some photos from a submission for publication, when it became apparent that in British Columbia, where they had been taken, there had been some court cases supporting the ownership of individuals of the copyright to their own likeness, even if they had been photographed in a public place. This is similar to the law in Quebec, as I understand it, as well as France, after which the other laws appear to have been modeled.
In the case of the photos I withdrew from a juried submission, it was evident that, while a court might uphold my right to take and publish the photos, the potential legal costs would probably not make the effort worthwhile. This would be especially true if we get these laws in the US, where lawyers are able to charge contingency fees. The photographer would not have, in this case, the luxury of cost-free legal representation in a lawsuit such as this. While there has in some cases been a provision in these laws for "newsworthy" and "journalistic" use, the clear definitions of these terms have not been [as in B.C.] clearly delineated, and it appears that enforcement of these laws has been all over the map. Maybe Tom A. has some thoughts about the local events in his province.
Many of the photographers I know who have always carried a camera with them have stopped taking shots of any scenes that include children, as well as some adult bystanders, even if they are incidental to the scene. I seem to recall an article within the past couple of years, highlighting posters that had been placed on the "tube" in London, UK. The posters, if I remember correctly, advised people to call a toll free telephone number, should they see someone taking a photograph of something they regarded as suspicious or otherwise not a subject they would consider of interest.
I'm beginning to understand the attraction of green bell peppers and commodes as subjects for photography.
That said, I recently had occasion to withdraw some photos from a submission for publication, when it became apparent that in British Columbia, where they had been taken, there had been some court cases supporting the ownership of individuals of the copyright to their own likeness, even if they had been photographed in a public place. This is similar to the law in Quebec, as I understand it, as well as France, after which the other laws appear to have been modeled.
In the case of the photos I withdrew from a juried submission, it was evident that, while a court might uphold my right to take and publish the photos, the potential legal costs would probably not make the effort worthwhile. This would be especially true if we get these laws in the US, where lawyers are able to charge contingency fees. The photographer would not have, in this case, the luxury of cost-free legal representation in a lawsuit such as this. While there has in some cases been a provision in these laws for "newsworthy" and "journalistic" use, the clear definitions of these terms have not been [as in B.C.] clearly delineated, and it appears that enforcement of these laws has been all over the map. Maybe Tom A. has some thoughts about the local events in his province.
Many of the photographers I know who have always carried a camera with them have stopped taking shots of any scenes that include children, as well as some adult bystanders, even if they are incidental to the scene. I seem to recall an article within the past couple of years, highlighting posters that had been placed on the "tube" in London, UK. The posters, if I remember correctly, advised people to call a toll free telephone number, should they see someone taking a photograph of something they regarded as suspicious or otherwise not a subject they would consider of interest.
I'm beginning to understand the attraction of green bell peppers and commodes as subjects for photography.
goamules
Well-known
Agreed, this proposed law didn't have much chance, glad it was vetoed. But in other countries, they really do have laws against street photography. Not in American, on most streets that aren't in front of a nuke facility or submarine base anyway.
ksb
Member
It was likely vetoed because of the "ado."
Big Ursus
Well-known
"I recently had occasion to withdraw some photos from a submission for publication, when it became apparent that in British Columbia, where they had been taken, there had been some court cases supporting the ownership of individuals of the copyright to their own likeness, even if they had been photographed in a public place. This is similar to the law in Quebec, as I understand it."
quadtones, your post was extremely interesting - and scary!
I photograph mainly in Canada, and now I'm learning how to design a book which will contain many street pictures in it.
A while ago, I asked this Forum for any information / experience folks had with Canadian laws about publishing pix of people in public places. I was reassured by the replies, but now I'm seriously concerned.
quadtones, do you have any more information about those B.C. and Quebec laws?
Can anyone else add anything about Canadian laws that deal with publishing, or exhibiting street photography?
quadtones, your post was extremely interesting - and scary! I photograph mainly in Canada, and now I'm learning how to design a book which will contain many street pictures in it.
A while ago, I asked this Forum for any information / experience folks had with Canadian laws about publishing pix of people in public places. I was reassured by the replies, but now I'm seriously concerned.
quadtones, do you have any more information about those B.C. and Quebec laws?
Can anyone else add anything about Canadian laws that deal with publishing, or exhibiting street photography?
willie_901
Veteran
It was vetoed?
If so at least one Governor is not an imbecile.
If so at least one Governor is not an imbecile.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Sounds like momentary group insanity. Threat has passed, move on.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Nothing was widely reported as changed since you have asked.
https://cippic.ca/en/FAQ/Photography_Law#distribute
IMO, book is distribution and if Canadians in this book are taken in over-Gilden style without permission they have at least moral rights to sue.