sirius
Well-known
That's my terrible and provocative translation of this documentary's title, La rue (zone) interdite. It will be much more enjoyable for those French speakers out there, but I found it truly fascinating. Happy regards...
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-8055791195744484552&hl=fr
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-8055791195744484552&hl=fr
mhv
Registered User
Welcome to Québec. That's the case that changed everything. I'm really glad Duclos made it available on the intertubes, because otherwise he was charging a ludicrous 70$ for the DVD...
BillBingham2
Registered User
It's good to see that Québec is doing all it can to slow down tourism dollars and make everything about one of the most wonderfully beautiful cities in North America secret. Seems stupid public officials (judges included) are not just down here in Chicago!
Thanks for sharing.
B2 (;->
Thanks for sharing.
B2 (;->
elshaneo
Panographer
Thanks a lot for the link !!! Fortunately in my case, I do understand French very well ;-)
mhv
Registered User
If you really want to blame someone in particular, it's the first judge who heard the case.
He allowed as "evidence" the word of the teenage girl who had been photographed and whose photo was published without her explicit consent.
She said that "her friends made fun of her" and that therefore, she was owed damages by the photographer.
Everything in this case hangs on that very, very thin thread. If you read the final Canada Supreme Court judgement, you will see that the judges in favor of overruling the original judgement were questioning the validity of the evidence.
Of course, the majority of the judges of the Supreme Court upheld the judgement, because, in their view, the role of higher courts is to sustain the integrity of the judicial system. And there was no specific vice of procedure in the original case.
Dura lex, sed lex. Nevertheless, I wish they had had more balls, and took a risk.
He allowed as "evidence" the word of the teenage girl who had been photographed and whose photo was published without her explicit consent.
She said that "her friends made fun of her" and that therefore, she was owed damages by the photographer.
Everything in this case hangs on that very, very thin thread. If you read the final Canada Supreme Court judgement, you will see that the judges in favor of overruling the original judgement were questioning the validity of the evidence.
Of course, the majority of the judges of the Supreme Court upheld the judgement, because, in their view, the role of higher courts is to sustain the integrity of the judicial system. And there was no specific vice of procedure in the original case.
Dura lex, sed lex. Nevertheless, I wish they had had more balls, and took a risk.
Last edited:
mhv
Registered User
Here is the complete text of the final Supreme Court judgement. You be the judges.
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs1-591/1998rcs1-591.html
The evidence is at item 29; read the dissenting judges' opinion at item 32; the judgement starts at item 38.
Item 58 and 59 are important for the exceptions: the case of public interest, when you can publish someone's picture without their consent; and the incidental inclusion of someone in a picture.
Point 62 shows that a work of art has no specific status in the relevant jursidiction (Québec), and that this is not a purpose that can warrant exception as 58 and 59.
Points 71-73 shows that there was no vice of procedure in the admission of evidence. Even though they are critical of the lower court judge, they side with him.
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1998/1998rcs1-591/1998rcs1-591.html
The evidence is at item 29; read the dissenting judges' opinion at item 32; the judgement starts at item 38.
Item 58 and 59 are important for the exceptions: the case of public interest, when you can publish someone's picture without their consent; and the incidental inclusion of someone in a picture.
Point 62 shows that a work of art has no specific status in the relevant jursidiction (Québec), and that this is not a purpose that can warrant exception as 58 and 59.
Points 71-73 shows that there was no vice of procedure in the admission of evidence. Even though they are critical of the lower court judge, they side with him.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Interesting. Well, this is the way the world is going, unfortunately.
I wonder what will happen when this unfortunate teenager demands that ATM machines stop filming when she walks by them, or traffic cameras, or TV news crews when she is at a public event that is being covered. Will the world cease taking photographs and recording images because she demands her 'right to privacy' when in public?
In the US, at least for the moment, in most places, a person's right to control the use of their image when taken in public consists of 'commercial use'. It is still possible to be sued if someone publishes an identifiable photo of a person which holds them up to ridicule or says something untrue about them in the caption (like "here is a photo of a prostitute" when the person is not one).
I've been to Montreal, it's a great place. I've no particular plans to return at the moment, but I can say that now I probably won't return - if I can't take photos, I'm not going to go, and that's as simple as that. Good luck them in their 'privacy'.
I wonder what will happen when this unfortunate teenager demands that ATM machines stop filming when she walks by them, or traffic cameras, or TV news crews when she is at a public event that is being covered. Will the world cease taking photographs and recording images because she demands her 'right to privacy' when in public?
In the US, at least for the moment, in most places, a person's right to control the use of their image when taken in public consists of 'commercial use'. It is still possible to be sued if someone publishes an identifiable photo of a person which holds them up to ridicule or says something untrue about them in the caption (like "here is a photo of a prostitute" when the person is not one).
I've been to Montreal, it's a great place. I've no particular plans to return at the moment, but I can say that now I probably won't return - if I can't take photos, I'm not going to go, and that's as simple as that. Good luck them in their 'privacy'.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Well I'm certainly not going to stop shooting when I'm in Montreal. One of my favorite places. If I was to live in a city it would be Montreal or NYC.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
HCB would have spent mpost of his life in jail.
kmerenkov
Established
Yeah, look what happened to him now. I don't want to end up like that
P.S. Sorry if that humour is not up to the level.
mhv
Registered User
Read the judgement: in those situations, e.g. news, the public interest trumps the right to privacy. I even pointed out the relevant section.
Can you give a few more details? In the situation being discussed, it is precisely the fact that the photo was commercially used (i.e. published in a magazine, for which the photog got a few pennies).