Discussions (292)

Quebec photography laws

view profile

Jonathan! says:

Here is a topic that is very relevant to all you Quebec photographers. I am hoping this kickstarts a discussion of photographers rights in Quebec & Canada. I'm starting this conversation because of the following thing that happend to me yesterday:

I was at a beach lake in the Laurentians yesterday and was was shooting photos around the beach area and in the water of friends and the general ambiance of the place.

Afterwards I was approached by some parents who wanted to see my photos and remove any photos that had their children on in the pictures. I did not object and they went through the images and I removed the photos they didnt want on there.

I understood their postion where they were coming for the following reasons:
a) I am a single white thirty something male
b)Mass saturation of peodophile stories in the media results in male photographers to be likely targets from the public.

If I was a woman, I most likely would not have been approached.
The concerned parents proceeded to say that by law I should be asking permission to take photos. As a photographer, I am loosely aware of the law, but I do not let it get to me as I see photography as a reflection of reality - if we censor, its not the truth.

This is where it gets a little foggy, Canadian law - most specifically, Quebec law. Like many of you Flickr photographers, I consider what I do, Editorial photography. Photography that can get used in News papers, Blogs etc that reflects life, not using the images to promote products or services.

Doing some reasearch I found the following links on photography in Quebec... it all seems to be a bit open for debate.
www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html
www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009s0V

Like many photographers, I have been abused by people who appear in the background of my photos. The best way with dealing with the abuse, is just to get your self away from that person as quick as possible. But when you are backed into a wall with now way out, you have to use some form of defence, you may have to throw some law into the equation.

If anyone has proven info on what the law is, with regards the Quebec laws, please add to this discussion.
Originally posted at 7:05AM, 17 July 2006 PDT (permalink)
Jonathan! edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

wilkiecoco says:

Thank you for posting this interesintg information. I have read the Supreme Court decision, and I think I can give you my take on what the law is in Quebec.

First of all, we must look to the Civil Code. The at the time of the case, the old Civil Code applied. The new Civil Code is even more specific. The new Civil Code Article 36 that applies here was quoted by the Court:

"the use of a person's name, image, likeness or voice for a purpose other than the legitimate information of the public is an invasion of privacy."

That's it. That's the law you are working with. This is the law which protects the subject of the photo.

Next, there is the right of freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter of rights. This right protects the photographer.

According to the Supreme Court, these two rights must be balanced against each other. In other words, neither is absolute. So the court states that the right to take the picture overrides the right to privacy, only where the public interest element of the photo outweighs the person's right to privacy.

So, for example, Jean Charest's right to privacy may be outweighed by the public's interest if he were to be photographed giving a speech in a public place. That's obvious. Less obvious is a non-celebrity's right to privacy if he or she is part of a news story.

Other examples given by the court are where a person is part of a crowd or is incidental to a photo of a public place, such as a building, or, perhaps a lake up north??

The court also addressed the public's need for "social" interest. This means, "art". Is an artist's right to display his art socially beneficial, and thus falls into the realm of "public interest" The court said no. This right does not override the right to privacy. So all you artists who think you are benefitting society by publishing photos of your neighbour's daughter, think again.

Finally, we must understand that it is not the taking of the photo that is against the law. It is also not against the law to publish a photo. It is only against the law where the photo infringes on a person's right to privacy. Furthermore, the infringement on the person's privacy, in and of itself is not against the law, unless that person can prove he or she was predjudiced in some fashion. In other words, he or she must prove damages.

In this case, it seems it didn't take more than her friends laughing at her for the "victim" to prove damages. The original court awarded her $2,000, but the Supreme Court said this seemed high. (Didn't lower it, though).

In the world of damages, there are two types: Patrimonial (financial) and expatrimonial (non-financial). In this case, expatrimonial damages were sought, although the court stated she could have also claimed compensation for what a model could have made.

So, to sum up, I think you can snap away. I don't think there is any law that allows anyone to touch your camera or prevent you from taking their picture. I don't think you need to ask permission to take a photograph (although it may be more polite). But once you have the photo, you would need permission to publish it in a public forum. If you don't get such permission, think about whether you want to publish it. Is it in the public's interest? If not, could it cause damages to the subject? If so, keep it in your camera.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
wilkiecoco edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

appaIoosa says:

I had a somewhat similar experience happen to me. Only I wasn't taking photos of people...

See pic and commentary here:

www.flickr.com/photos/appaloosa/73614537/in/set-1609729/

~app
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Jonathan! says:

Thanks Wilkieco for this info!
Here is another link about copyright in Canada which may have relevent info embedded: lois.justice.gc.ca/en/c-42/index.html

@appoloosa - I get you on that one and nothing is worse than a little kid exerting their authority (monkey see monkey do) - but shooting on private places requires permission, unless you think you can get away sneakily
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Steve Brandon says:

Bwa-ha-ha! A photo of the Centre Eaton with a whole bunch of random people whose permission I did not ask, taken days before I read this thread.

I'm such a rebel!
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

eric samson says:

The trick is to not be able to identify the people who are in your shots.

You can either ask for permission (have them sign a release) or blur (or darken) their faces after the fact. There are ways of doing this creatively enough that it doesn't even show.

No one has any say as to if you can photograph them or not - just what you do with it. If it's to be used publicly, they can ask to be unidentifiable. They can't legally have you delete pictures or stop shooting.

Of course, this applies only in a public place, or in a private place when you have (explicit or implicit) permission from the owner. Someone could ask you to stop taking pictures of them showering in their own home, for example...
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

WhyNotThisOne says:

Here is a link on the case Gilbert Duclos case.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

dm77 says:

everyone is fair game in the public meat market. you have 100% right to take a picture of ANYONE and they can't do anything about it .
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Oliver Lavery says:

@Jonathan and Wilkieco, thanks for so much for asking and answering this question. After reading a few 'Hardcore Street Photography' threads about nasty things that happened in the US, I've been wondering about the law here.

@dm77 - I think that might be the attitude of photogrpahers that has made passers by yell 'paparazzo', 'voyeur' and such as I've been minding my business taking photos.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

dm77 says:

WITH MICRO DIGITAL CAMERAS YOU CAN TAKE PICTURES OF anyone WITHOUT THEM EVEN KNOWING.......SD630 no optical viewfinder so you shoot from the hip.......whatever....i like ILLEGAL photos .......
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Aka Kage says:

There's an ongoing thread on DPReview that relates to this topic.

forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1018&th...
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Bill Smith1 says:

This is an interesting thread, I am a former Montrealer residing in Greater Toronto for a very long time. I am thankful I live in a juristiction with the English Common Law format and for now (touch wood product) we are good.

I run under the premise, if it is a public environment you are fair game. I avoid taking pictures of children unless its my nephew Marcus, pedophilia fears are rampent around here too. I feel sorry for you guys down in Montreal to deal with this hassle. Until the paranoia pendulem swings the other way, no street photography on the Main.....

Bill
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Bill Smith1 edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

WestCoast Frog says:

Hello,

Although this topic was talked through a solid year or more ago, I'm only catching up to the discussion now. I do have a few questions to clear up my rights as a photographer, based on the fact that I don't reside in Québec, but in BC.

Only Québec has this law on the books, not any other province in Canada that I know of. (I can't speak to other countries and restrictions elsewhere.) With that, my concern is in regards to my actions as a photographer while visiting Montreal: if I take a picture of someone in public while on Ste-Catherine street, then return to Vancouver, and post it to Flickr, am I liable? The subject didn't give me permission either because they were unaware or didn't stop me at the time, nor signed a release.

The action of taking the photo isn't against the law, that I understand. But the process of making it public without prior consent is the grey area for me. Does the fact that I posted the photo taken in Montreal make it contentious, or would I have to be residing in Québec for the law to apply to my subsequent actions? Does this law apply to all photographers, regardless of their origin (another province or country?) If a tourist takes a photo of a subject that might become public, how is that followed up? Is the ball in the subject's court to make a complaint with authorities; do municipal or provincial police start the ball rolling; or is the provincial goverment going to toss that ball at me for crossing the line?

Hope no one minds that I've restarted this topic. I'm about to travel to Montreal for a few weeks, and want to know ahead of time what I should be aware of and look out to avoid. Cheers.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

minstral2002 says:

Interesting thread. I am not worried about peoples faces if I am shooting something else. There is no bad intent, and a judge will look at that. Rest assured of your motives if they are not ill intended.

Stewart
Montreal
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bwahn says:

Well, I tried to take some pictures of my kids at NDG water park. I was approached by a city worker(life guard??) and told me that accordind to city by-law camera is not allowed in the pool and the park. I've recently moved from Toronto and I've never had a problem taking my kids at water-park in Toronto.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Jonathan! says:

@ Westcoast Frag. If you shot the image in public space and you are posting it on Flickr. No problems.

@bwahn. Is the NDG waterpark on private property?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bwahn says:

@Jonathan!: No it isn't. It belongs to the either city of Montreal or NDG borough. didn't have to pay to enter though.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Jonathan! says:

@bwahn, if I was you I would check on the city bylaw. My gut feeling is that the person was telling you a lie. That happens often. it happened to me, which is why I checked the law.

I can't speak 100% certainty about the pool, but being in a park open space and being told not to take a photo, they are taking you for a ride. Nothing is worse than somebody trying to control your actions when you have every right to free expression. Creates a big brother society and lessens you as a human being.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Jonathan! says:

Here are a few links worth reading about the law
ambientlight.ca/laws.shtml
www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii817/1998canli...
photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Knab
www.photocritic.org/2007/street-photography-in-montreal/
www.photocritic.org/2006/photography-rights-vs-respect/
www.montrealmirror.com/2005/080405/news1.html
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

bwahn says:

thanks, Jonathan.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

fabio costello says:

Interesting stuff. I love taking pictures of children playing, I did it in some parks in London and only once a very polite lady asked me if I was a tourist (yup) or if I intended to use the pics professionally (as if I was that good). I offered to delete anything she wanted, she smiled, declined, no problem.

Here in Montréal I've been nagged when trying to shoot a picture of a homeless, since then I pretty much gave up shooting in parks. Then again, I like to portrait people and not places, and it's just impossible to ask for written permission for every single picture. I came from Brazil and my visions of Montréal have a lot to do with portraying how the people here are. It's so interesting, and such an essential part of what makes a city like this tick.

That being said, I hope publishing in a paper/magazine is viewed differently from publishing in a website, where you can just delete the offending picture right away if someone complains.

I am afraid pics like these:
flickr.com/photos/fabiocostello/1547813259/
flickr.com/photos/fabiocostello/1547816291/
Are actually illegal here :( I wonder if they'll cause me trouble?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

fabio costello says:

Just to let you know of an interesting development:

A person portrayed in one of the above pics found it by chance here in Flickr, was thrilled to get the original and didn't express any concern on having it there. So, actually publishing the "offending" photo here might help getting late authorization...
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

The French Pantry says:

I was taking a picture of my son at a wading pool in NDG last summer and the life guard told me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures. I'm not a 30 year old single male, I'm the child's MOTHER!!

They said no cameras in the pool area even if you are only taking pics of your own child.

Granted I can understand the position and I would not want strangers taking pics of my child, but they didn't take away the bionoculars of the middle aged man who was looking at the kids. But I digress.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

keene creative says:

I live in Vancouver, and just came back from visiting Montréal for the first time. I guess I'm rather glad I hadn't read this thread before hand as I'd have probably been more paranoid when taking pics. In Vancouver, it's general accepted knowledge that if you're in a public park, or area, you're fair game and your picture, anybody's picture could be taken. I've seldom had any problems. There was one time in a rough neighbourhood where one guy didn't want me taking photographs, I didn't even take his he was just being arbitrarily belligerent.

I prefer the fair game policy we have here in the west (even though I want to move to Montréal). I guess if I move there I'll just have to avoid taking pictures of humans. Sad... how many stories are missed in Montréal and never told because of it? Makes one wonder.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
keene creative edited this topic ages ago.

fair shake [deleted] says:

bwahn, hip kid -
Must be an NDG wading pool thing, I've taken tons of shots of my daughter in Parc Jeanne-Mance & Parc Outremont, I've taken phots in Parc Laurier, Parc Mont-Royal, Parc Joyce, Westmount Park... And I'm a 37 year old white male with a prosumer dslr.

I think what you actually have there is an authoritarian wading pool supervisor. Legally you can't take photos of other people's children without a waiver, but unless there's clearly posted signs I'm going to call bullshit on "no cameras in the pool area even if you are only taking pics of your own child".

Pedo fear frenzy aside ...seriously - wading pools? If toddlers in swimsuits is all it takes, why an actual pedophile would risk such a thing when they could just get a Zellers catalogue is beyond me. Nobody wants to think of some freak rubbing one out over an image of their kid, but we're not talking child pornography here, we're talking about images that are less salacious than your average department store catalogue.

The ostensibly stricter laws aside, I do know people are a lot less weird about photographers in public places chez nous than in many parts of the US, say - even if the individual does have more right to controlling their own image here than elsewhere in N. America. I've had people give me grief for taking photos, but not even threatened legal action, and for the most part I've found that looking like a serious photographer makes me less suspicious. If I was pulling a 99 dollar digital camera furtively out of my coat pocket then slinking away that would be different, as opposed to having my dslr hanging from a strap around my neck, setting up & taking my shots like it ain't no thing ... because, in fact, ain't no thing. I've had security guards come over to see what I was up to on their site, but when they saw I was just taking photos, they left me be - even a couple of times where I was very clearly in a place I should not be. If you act furtive, you are treated with suspicion.

Just act confident and sincere and they won't get all up in your grill about it. If they tell you to get lost, tip your hat and get lost, or if you feel like you're in the right, tell them to get lost themselves. Seriously, telling you that you can't take a picture of your own kid in a public park is asinine and I sincerely suspect without any legal basis. If photos are not permitted on a city property, there would be a sign saying so posted in plain view. I would, in fact, suggest that any tinpot fascist park employee behaving like this should be reported - next time insist they give you their employee ID#.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
fair shake edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

I'll fight you for that sandwich says:

yeah i get assaulted and hassled a lot

assholes-low

But hey bottom line is i can see it from public property i m allowed to shoot it, especially when you consider i only use ultra wide lenses so none of that zooming on asses buisiness here... Never had anyone be able to argue otherwise with the cops.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Mac Pham says:

I just moved to Quebec from Ontario... had no idea about this "special situation" in Quebec.

*sigh* So do people not typically take pictures at like children's sporting events, like soccer, baseball etc.?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

mderomephoto says:



Quote from The mirror article

"But media lawyer Mark Bantey - another opponent of the photo restrictions - argues that a complaint made in another province would likely lead to the same restrictions applying there. "Right now it only applies to Quebec Civil Law, but I'm convinced that it will creep across the rest of Canada," he says. "I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, but I'm sure one day it will."

So until then enjoy taking pictures, one day, perhaps a resident will complain in court that his rights where baffled.And then, you would loose the freedom of taking street photography pictures, like we did.(there's a Canadian supreme court jugment on the Duclos case,so it's not limited to Quebec if contested in another province)

I believe that the Quebec laws would be enforced , since the pictures where taken here.As long , that the subject is a Quebec resident.Then again he would have to know about it and show that he was caused prejudice.Would be a costly battle I believe.

Doesn't prevent me from posting. But I must say, that I'm careful when I give a title to the picture (most of the time I don't, to avoid controversy)I also try to avoid embarrasing pictures, unless I know the people (like safari members). Even then, for some I do ask permission before making the photo public. Some photographers are very self conscious of there image.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Jim Cim says:

This happening to me all the time, and it is getting frustrating.

I understand the sensitivity with children, so I am careful NEVER to approach an individual child I do not know in a public place like a park to take their picture. But I am getting complaints from adults .......... at public gatherings like local sports events. If you never want any chance of anyone taking your picture in a public place DON'T LEAVE YOUR HOUSE!!!

If any of you have tried setting up a tri-pod anywhere in a major American city like New York you will discover another problem. Being looked at as a terrorist scoping future targets. This is getting ridiculous.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Jim Cim edited this topic ages ago.

fair shake [deleted] says:

Like a terrorist wouldn't have access to Google Earth.
:D
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

ziadchatila says:

What a great thread. I have a prosumer camera and sometimes I bring a tripod to do time lapse.

Once they see the DSLR, they go after you, but a tripod too? Damn. Double no-no lol.

Generally speaking, these are the rules I follow: If there is no expectation of privacy i.e. public place and crowd, then I shoot. I usually do the wide angle lens thing anyway, so no worries.

If it's in a shopping center, then I may get away with it, but it is private, so I usually don't shoot.

When I shot inside the metro, I asked permission first. I had to fax a signed copy and follow strict rules. damn. But at least they let me shoot.

I have had plenty of problems though. I went shooting with a tripod and dslr at Place des arts and at the old port, and was told by security that I didn't have the right to take pictures. They both were nice and let me shoot anyway, but what the hell?

It's public space. They have no right. I explained to the guard that I wasn't a professional, so I couldn't get a news permit, so WTF?

I also have been kicked out of Concordia, even though I have permission from Concordia itself to shoot.

As a matter of fact, Concordia has a flickr group on here for pictures of concordia.

It ain't right.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Loren Segal says:

I think everyone missed two important parts of the law as paraphrased by the original mirror article:

"they can sue you for making such images public"

Again, this is based on the phrasing from the mirror not the *actual* law (does anyone have the official legal documentation?), but here's what I logically conclude:

1. They can *sue* you. It's civil. It's not criminal. That means a police officer can't decide that you're breaking the law and you can't go to jail over this, nor can anyone temporarily detain you or your camera on site for committing a civil offense-- that would actually be a criminal offense in itself. A report has to be filed by a citizen. A angry parent or nazi lifeguard can't steal your camera and demand you take off the photos if it's done from a public place. If they get mad at you, give them your full contact information and tell them they can submit a full police report if they feel so inclined, or to talk to their lawyer about starting a civil suit. You'll probably find that they won't bother.

2. This law only applies if the images are made *public*. Not all images are made public, and it's impossible for someone to tell which images you will be using publically while you're shooting, so anyone who says "you can't take photos of me" is wrong. You can take the photos. The only thing you cannot do is publish those photos. Tell them you understand and that the photos in question will not be published, and again, offer to give them your contact information so they feel comfortable in tracking you down if you lied to them. You should not be harrassed about this while shooting in a public place, that's simply wrong. Inform them that the law does allow you to take photos in a public place for your own private use. You should however expect to get harrassed if you did not get consent and published the photos (and it's a lot worse if the photo was defamatory or for profit).

I don't know how #2 applies to taking photos of minors as there are probably specific laws that deal with that, but generally speaking, as long as it's for private documentation and usage, there is nothing necessarily illegal about what you're doing unless you DO plan on putting the photos on flickr, or something.

edit: Check this out, it confirms some of the things I've said and probably gives a little more insight: ambientlight.ca/laws.php. Quote from the site:

However, the Charter only dictates the government's role (ie: the police can't stop you from taking photos, just because they feel like it). The charter does not relieve you of breaking other laws, nor civil law (you vs. another private citizen). It also doesn't dictate what you are allowed to do on someone else's property.

Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Loren Segal edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

Loretta Stephens13 says:

I have a question. I took a few photos of some buildings in Old Montreal, one of them is presently under construction, and I have just recently sold a couple of these images to a stock company. Does anyone know if I need to get permission to sell the images of these two buildings?
The laws are so finicky lately, I really have no idea where they stand anymore...

Thank you.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Michel Filion says:

Usually, when you intend to sell photos of a building that can be identified, a signed property release should be appended to it.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
Michel Filion edited this topic ages ago.

equable cactus [deleted] says:

Hi,

I'm from Montreal and I rarely get bothered with shooting, even with street shooting. Three times I went to Westmount Park, among others, with prosumer digi gear and film gear, set up tripod, shot "small landscapes" and people. Never got bothered. I even shot inside the Palais des Congrès. Of course, depending on the situation, I may be very visible, or very low profile. Once shooting film with an old TLR on tripod in a pedestrian steet, people stopped by asking questions about the camera. I shoot often at the Marché Jean-Talon, never get bothered. And once I shot at the café of Chapters book store, being very visible, but simulating some checking on the camera.

Once again, I think you must "feel" the situation and have the right attitude.
Originally posted ages ago. (permalink)
equable cactus edited this topic ages ago.

view photostream

Michel Filion says:

In fact, shooting is not a problem. In Quebec, a photographer is well protected by the law regarding the action of "taking photographs". Technically, a photographer can shoot anything he/she want, may it be people, building, animals, and the list can go on and on... As soon as a photo is taken, the photgrapher becomes the sole owner of the image, and nobody can force him/her to delete an image without the owner's (the photographer in that matter) approbation. Of course, this is technically speeking. But most of the time, it's a matter of common sense.

Where things starts to be slightly complicated, is in cases of publishing those photos (Magazines, books, pamphlet, web... All those mediums that are spread to a wider amount of people than the photographer's personal usage). This is where and when you need written approval for usage of photos where recognizable people or property are to be seen. That is unless your photo are news worthy. Photo journalist don't travel with a bunch of model release paper work, but just in case, they mostly do ask for people's name, those who might appear in the local news paper.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Chia Tea says:

can i sued some security camera for taking picture of me? especially these ones i passed often?
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

Wil C. Fry says:

I visited Canada recently, mostly touring Montreal, but also Ottawa. And I took over 1,500 photos, most of them out in public.

I can say that I experienced much less bother than I do in the U.S. In Canada, no one said anything, while in the United States, I'm frequently approached by police/security/other people, trying to tell me what I can and can't do.

Conclusion: From my U.S. perspective, it seemed Canadians were much less worried about me and what I was doing. For the most part, they minded their own business and let me go about mine. It was a good feeling. :-)
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

blork says:

It's probably been mentioned before, but the trouble with street photography in Quebec comes from one particular Supreme Court ruling: Aubry vs. Éditions Vice-Versa. Here's what I wrote about it on the "About" page of my "Clandestine Street Photography" blog:

Because in Quebec it is illegal to publish a photograph of someone without their permission. This is the result of a lawsuit (Aubry vs. Editions Vice Versa) in which the plaintiff (Pascale Claude Aubry) successfully sued a magazine that had published a street photograph of her without her permission. She claimed it violated her right to privacy and caused her embarrassment.

The ruling sent a shock wave through the photographic community in Quebec. Street photography is a well respected and widely practiced genre, and suddenly it was off limits within these borders. In reality, plenty of people still practice street photography, but they do so at the risk of lawsuit if any of their subjects decide to take action. Thankfully, the people of Quebec are, by and large, artistically minded and more inclined to encourage photographic expression than to prosecute it.

(Source, including links: From the Hip, Montreal.)

Francis Vachon, a local photographer, has a pretty thorough write-up about these issues on his Web site (French only), here.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

sinnedc says:

I just moved in from Dubai to Montreal and here i thought i escaped the strict laws with regards to photography.

Funny thing is i was about to continue my forte this weekend till i read about these...
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

blork says:

Sinnedc, I'm sad to hear that. But please bear in mind that photographing people is not illegal; it's the publishing of the photos without the person's permission that is. And even then, it's only a problem if the person files a complaint, which is highly unlikely and exceedingly rare.

It is entirely a "civil" issue, meaning the police won't arrest you nor even harass you. It's only a problem if the person you photograph sees the published image and objects to it.
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

sinnedc says:

Thanks blork for making that more clearer for me...

Chia Tea Pro User says:
can i sued some security camera for taking picture of me? especially these ones i passed often?

-Haha.....its good to try.....
ages ago (permalink)

view photostream

(RS) says:

This is a very old topic but I live in Montreal and I sometimes do street photography.
I never had any issue with anybody while I was doing photographs, of course sometimes you can read the body language from far of reluctant subjects, then I avoid. Common sense prevails. Of course I don't publish any photographs for money.
With all smartphones these days, good luck with that !
46 months ago (permalink)

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).