Street photography in Canada

[Brianbar]

Since the Canadian Government introduced the Privacy Act, does anybody know if this effect photographing people in public places, without their permission, such as Street Photography etc.

Brian

[jwhee0615]

I would ask Michael Reichman over at his website www.luminous-landscape.com He is based in Toronto and does street shooting.

[Yan]

I am very interested in this... if any got response from him would you please post here to share it with us? thanks[/i]

[drisley]

Well, all I can say is that in my city in western canada, they just passed a bylaw that prohibits entry of any cameras or video cameras into any recreation centre, arena, or swimming pool anywhere in the city... even if you are a parent! :shock:
I havent heard anything about shooting in public places, I mean, I still do it. However, I am alot more careful about trying to avoid taking pictures of kids. I've heard too many stories of photogs being arrested and questioned by cops because some parents were worried the photog was taking too many pictures of children. And most of the time the photogs were innocent. In one case, the guy was innocent, but the cops searched his place for kiddy pr0n, and found none. However, they did find he had a switch-blade collection in his home, and charged him with posession of a weapon! :shock: Oh, and in addition his name was platered all over the national newspapers.
This is just plain ol' retarded. There are no more pervs now than there used to be (probably less in fact), but we hear alot more about the ones that do exist because of technology.

Anyway, I'm 99% sure there is nothing in the Privacy Act to affect public photography. It was developed more to protect Canadians' information, especially since the American Patriot Act was developed.
It's almost an Anti-Patriot Act.

[Jesper]

Well, all I can say is that in my city in western canada, they just passed a bylaw that prohibits entry of any cameras or video cameras into any recreation centre, arena, or swimming pool anywhere in the city... even if you are a parent! :shock:

That's crazy and incredible. How does something like prohibiting cameras in public places help security? So that potential terrorists can't make recordings of those places? I think that such a law is very ineffective and complete nonsense. It's even prohibited to make a photo of your own children?!?!

What if you're a professional photographer and you need to shoot in a public place? Do you have to get a special permit somewhere?

p.s. this thread doesn't belong int the Canon EOS forum.

[drisley]

It's not for security. We aren't as worried about that stuff as the americans.
It's to keep children from being photographed. Still it's a stupid idea.
People are just getting WAY to protective and scared of everything.
BTW, Brianbar, this bylaw is in effect in your city too. :wink:

[Brianbar]

I took your advise jwhee0615, and contacted Michael Reichman.
His reply was Quote "You'd best get legal advice on this"

Brian

[jwhee0615]

Well, I guess that would absolve him of any liability for bad advice. Kinda suprised at the reply. :? Sorry about that. I figured he could have some useful input as he does this type of photography. How did you phrase your question?

[Brianbar]

Hi jwhee0615
I gave him the direct link to this Forum with my question and the response so far.
The more I think about it, Street Photography etc. must be okay, otherwise it would kill press photographers.

Brian

[DocFrankenstein]

the cops searched his place for kiddy pr0n, and found none. However, they did find he had a switch-blade collection in his home, and charged him with posession of a weapon!
This is so fd up.

1) the search warrant permits you to search for specific stuff only. If you go in looking for porn, it doesn't matter if you find a blade.

2) Poor guy. In canada, it doesn't matter if you own an AK-47 or a switchblade. It's a prohibited weapon, and he may not be able to attend a college or apply for a decent job... cause that's criminal offence.

[Paul_B]

well, this thread has me upset.
I'll have to think before I just blast out my thoughts, I had a very angry post typed out, and decided to delete and start again.
I find this all very sad and troubling.
I have 2 kids, a 9 year old thats into Soccer (big reason I got the camera), and swimming. My son is 5, and is starting swimming next month. I had no intentions of taking pics of the swimming classes, but find it troubling I may/could be accused of something wrong if I wanted to take pictures of swimming class.


It's not for security. We aren't as worried about that stuff as the americans.
It's to keep children from being photographed.

Well, all I can say is that in my city in western canada, they just passed a bylaw that prohibits entry of any cameras or video cameras into any recreation centre, arena, or swimming pool anywhere in the city... even if you are a parent!

Well, I don't know what to say, I almost wish I hadn't seen this post.
I live in Toronto, and when talking/chatting with the boss at work, I just happen to mention I had taken up photography. He mentioned how someone was arrested for taking pictures of the CN Tower just this summer.
I dunno, things are out of hand. I'll end here.

[Bruce Watson]

In lawyer speak, this example would be called "fruit from the poisoned tree" and s/b thrown out by the judge.

Basically, it is a principle of English common law (basis of Canadian Criminal Code) that prevents 'fishing trips' by authorities, i.e. they get a warrant to search for one thing and happen to catch another.

However, there are some notable exceptions established, such as random road side checks for drunk driving.

Hopefully the chap in the example given gets a decent lawyer and fights the prohibited weapons charge, he should win.

Bruce

the cops searched his place for kiddy pr0n, and found none. However, they did find he had a switch-blade collection in his home, and charged him with posession of a weapon!
This is so fd up.

1) the search warrant permits you to search for specific stuff only. If you go in looking for porn, it doesn't matter if you find a blade.

2) Poor guy. In canada, it doesn't matter if you own an AK-47 or a switchblade. It's a prohibited weapon, and he may not be able to attend a college or apply for a decent job... cause that's criminal offence.

[DocFrankenstein]

In lawyer speak, this example would be called "fruit from the poisoned tree" and s/b thrown out by the judge.

Basically, it is a principle of English common law (basis of Canadian Criminal Code) that prevents 'fishing trips' by authorities, i.e. they get a warrant to search for one thing and happen to catch another.

However, there are some notable exceptions established, such as random road side checks for drunk driving.

Hopefully the chap in the example given gets a decent lawyer and fights the prohibited weapons charge, he should win.

Bruce

the cops searched his place for kiddy pr0n, and found none. However, they did find he had a switch-blade collection in his home, and charged him with posession of a weapon!
This is so fd up.

1) the search warrant permits you to search for specific stuff only. If you go in looking for porn, it doesn't matter if you find a blade.

2) Poor guy. In canada, it doesn't matter if you own an AK-47 or a switchblade. It's a prohibited weapon, and he may not be able to attend a college or apply for a decent job... cause that's criminal offence.
Yeah, but you need probable cause to do anything besides breathalyzer test and ID check.

There are a lot of material out there on how to behave when stopped by an officer and about your rights.

[Dale]

Well, all I can say is that in my city in western canada, they just passed a bylaw that prohibits entry of any cameras or video cameras into any recreation centre, arena, or swimming pool anywhere in the city... even if you are a parent! :shock:


I'll be going to Sask, AB, and BC this winter. During my visits I plan on taking pictures of my Grand Kids. One plays hockey and the other figure skates. What city passed that lame By-Lay. It's getting so bad that soon you won't be able to fart in a public place. :cry: It's time for a civil revolt, give us our freedom back.

[drisley]

The bylaw was passed in Winterpeg (http://www.brandonsun.com/displayad.cgi?adnum=757). :wink:
Btw, they also passed a bylaw that says if you fart in a public place they tape your butt-cheeks together and you must keep them that way for 1 week.

[Dale]

The bylaw was passed in Winterpeg (http://www.brandonsun.com/displayad.cgi?adnum=757). :wink:
Btw, they also passed a bylaw that says if you fart in a public place they tape your butt-cheeks together and you must keep them that way for 1 week.

I was born and raised in Winterpeg. In fact I may be there during the xmas season. I'll make sure I visit a local skating rink with camera. How is the food in the jails there these days? How could the parents of young hockey players,figure skaters,swimmers, dancers etc etc let this happen and accept it without protest.

[Brianbar]

This thread seems to have died a natural death, surely someone in Canada must have an answer.

Brian

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

I don't know exactly what the rules are, but I'm not going to stop shooting pictures of streets scenes. As long as I stick to public places, I don't believe there is an issue.

I do believe that cameras need to be controlled in some places: change rooms at sport centers and all places in a health club, but not the arena area!

How do you control the camera/phones that are prevalent in society now?

If the arena or pool is a city owned area, I know I would be fighting this one!

The street is still a public place, and I'll be d@#$%d if I'll let some officious idiot try to tell me otherwise!

Sorry about the rant, but I'm really tired with all the bull people try to use to control others :evil:

[redbutt]

How do you control the camera/phones that are prevalent in society now?

This, I think is the real problem. There were two recent cases here in San Diego, one I was witness to. The first involves a dirty old man that was stalking young girls and taking "up-skirt" pictures with his cell phone camera. He was only caught when one of the girls fought him and her father happened to be there with a camera and got a good photo of him for police. He was then recognized on a security camera tape.

The other incident was at the San Diego Civic Theatre where I was watching the show RENT on tour. Of course the ususal disclaimer about cameras and recording devices before the show came on. Still, there was a guy in the 5th row taking pictures of the show with his camera phone. My wife (a local director) and I wen't storming off to the ushers to point the guy out and they point blank said they couldn't do anything about it, cause "it was his cell phone". If it had been a "real" camera, they could have pulled the media card/film, but because it was a cell phone, they couldn't do anything. I said, BS...take his phone, but they wouldn't.

The issue here is that some people feel that laws and rules don't apply to them. They are destroying the world for the rest of us. The only way governments can respond, is to make sweeping, over-generalized laws to "protect us" from the folks that would loose a battle of wits against a Chimpanzee. It's a sad fact that the world has come to this.

All we can do is keep doing what we are doing, and document what we can.

[boomer1959]

One photography course I took this subject came up. I was told that if you are in a public gathering your picture could be taken and used in any publication with out permission. That is a very broad statement. People at a hockey arena are at a public gathering.

[DocFrankenstein]

One photography course I took this subject came up. I was told that if you are in a public gathering your picture could be taken and used in any publication with out permission. That is a very broad statement. People at a hockey arena are at a public gathering.
Every sporting competition I attended, me and my parents had to sign a statement that I can be photographed, recorder, distributed, reproduced, shown... etc... :?

[boomer1959]

One photography course I took this subject came up. I was told that if you are in a public gathering your picture could be taken and used in any publication with out permission. That is a very broad statement. People at a hockey arena are at a public gathering.
Every sporting competition I attended, me and my parents had to sign a statement that I can be photographed, recorder, distributed, reproduced, shown... etc... :?



Did the organizers of the event want you to sign that?
If you are in a crowd and a shot of the crowd was sold to a newspaper, dose everyone in the crowd have to sign that? It would take forever.
It is assumed that if in that case you very well could have your photo taken.

[redbutt]

Did the organizers of the event want you to sign that?
If you are in a crowd and a shot of the crowd was sold to a newspaper, dose everyone in the crowd have to sign that? It would take forever.
It is assumed that if in that case you very well could have your photo taken.

Usually, the purchase of a ticket to the event has a "User Agreement" associated with it. It's not usually easy to find, but the rules of use for the ticket cover the venue for this sort of thing. However, it is also usually specific to staff photographers and allowed press.

I've looked into this because I want to get a press pass as a freelancer to cover things here in my town just for fun (and make a little money on the side), and it's been very interesting.

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Getting into privately run events is another issue, someone has organized an event that they have all rights to control any output from that event. Concerts, sports (pro and am), gatherings in organized events are not street photography.

Everyday occurences in a public arena are another thing altogeather. Again for some shots, model releases would be required for any money-making processes.

Out on the street, photographing (got to stop using shooting to describe the act of photographing!) scenes is another thing. This is the topic I think we started with, the wide open area of the public access to everything.

Photographing the scene of a street market would be fine, but centering in on a particular person (recognizable) and publishing it, would be an infringement without a model release. Another subject completely.

There is a spot in Ottawa called the Byward Market, a square of streets that have open air markets and a variety of night life and restaurants that I like to picture. I don't even consider "permission" required to do so.

I would also take to task any city councillor willing to try to stop general photography.

What about our Parliament Hill area, public or private? Most photographed building in Canada? Who has the rights?

[DocFrankenstein]

Did the organizers of the event want you to sign that?
If you are in a crowd and a shot of the crowd was sold to a newspaper, dose everyone in the crowd have to sign that? It would take forever.
It is assumed that if in that case you very well could have your photo taken.
It was not a private event. I was usually sent to swim meets either from a school or from my club. In order to be there, I had to sign "no injuries and photographed" papers...

The spectators didn't have to sign anything.

So, basically a very positive environment for the media is created. You can shoot and someone has done the paperwork for you already.