Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Back to the discussion on taking people's photos in public

Reply
Thread Tools

Back to the discussion on taking people's photos in public

 
 
Juarez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Most of you think you have the right to take photos of people in public
without their permission. Well, in the U.S. you may get away with it but do
that in Canada and you may well get sued for it.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42334

"In Canada, it seems that taking a photograph of someone in public might
constitute an invasion of privacy."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Juarez <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Most of you think you have the right to take photos of people in public
>without their permission. Well, in the U.S. you may get away with it but do
>that in Canada and you may well get sued for it.


>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42334


>"In Canada, it seems that taking a photograph of someone in public might
>constitute an invasion of privacy."


I suspect that it depends on what you do with the photos. If
they are taken for your noncommercial use only, you are quite
in the clear.

There is in the US (and I expect in Canada as well) no legal
expectation of total privacy when in public. It is what the
word "public" means. On the other hand, sticking your camera
into somebody's window and photographing them in the confines
of a private home is a different matter entirely.

The Google situation, as per the URL above, is another matter
as the pictures are used commercially.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Juarez
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:05:56 +0000, Paul J Gans wrote:


> I suspect that it depends on what you do with the photos. If
> they are taken for your noncommercial use only, you are quite
> in the clear.
>
> There is in the US (and I expect in Canada as well) no legal
> expectation of total privacy when in public. It is what the
> word "public" means. On the other hand, sticking your camera
> into somebody's window and photographing them in the confines
> of a private home is a different matter entirely.
>
> The Google situation, as per the URL above, is another matter
> as the pictures are used commercially.
>


I don't know. Private or commercial use it is still an invasion of
privacy. I guess it needs to be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada to
see what the real deal is.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Good Man
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Juarez <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:_IgGi.217311$VU2.154372
@fe02.news.easynews.com:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:05:56 +0000, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
>> I suspect that it depends on what you do with the photos. If
>> they are taken for your noncommercial use only, you are quite
>> in the clear.
>>
>> There is in the US (and I expect in Canada as well) no legal
>> expectation of total privacy when in public. It is what the
>> word "public" means. On the other hand, sticking your camera
>> into somebody's window and photographing them in the confines
>> of a private home is a different matter entirely.
>>
>> The Google situation, as per the URL above, is another matter
>> as the pictures are used commercially.
>>

>
> I don't know. Private or commercial use it is still an invasion of
> privacy. I guess it needs to be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada

to
> see what the real deal is.


It is *not* an invasion of privacy legally, though you may feel so
morally. If you are standing in a public area and your photo is taken
for a non-commercial purpose, you can be photographed.

ie: paparazzi
ie: closed-circuit police cameras

etc etc


Either way, the Privacy Commissioner can be 'concerned', but she can't
do much about it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Cynicor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Good Man wrote:
> It is *not* an invasion of privacy legally, though you may feel so
> morally. If you are standing in a public area and your photo is taken
> for a non-commercial purpose, you can be photographed.
>
> ie: paparazzi
> ie: closed-circuit police cameras


Isn't paparazzi a commercial purpose, by definition?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Good Man
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Cynicor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) t:

> Good Man wrote:
>> It is *not* an invasion of privacy legally, though you may feel so
>> morally. If you are standing in a public area and your photo is taken
>> for a non-commercial purpose, you can be photographed.
>>
>> ie: paparazzi
>> ie: closed-circuit police cameras

>
> Isn't paparazzi a commercial purpose, by definition?


This is true, so there you go, i presume the usage is probably irrelevant.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Somebody
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
"Juarez" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_IgGi.217311$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:05:56 +0000, Paul J Gans wrote:
>
>
>> I suspect that it depends on what you do with the photos. If
>> they are taken for your noncommercial use only, you are quite
>> in the clear.
>>
>> There is in the US (and I expect in Canada as well) no legal
>> expectation of total privacy when in public. It is what the
>> word "public" means. On the other hand, sticking your camera
>> into somebody's window and photographing them in the confines
>> of a private home is a different matter entirely.
>>
>> The Google situation, as per the URL above, is another matter
>> as the pictures are used commercially.
>>

>
> I don't know. Private or commercial use it is still an invasion of
> privacy. I guess it needs to be tested in the Supreme Court of Canada to
> see what the real deal is.



There is no such thing as privacy in a public setting. If you want privacy
go home and lock your doors and pull the curtains. In a park someone's fat
ass is fair game.

Somebody!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Juarez <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Most of you think you have the right to take photos of people in public
>without their permission. Well, in the U.S. you may get away with it but do
>that in Canada and you may well get sued for it.
>
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42334
>
>"In Canada, it seems that taking a photograph of someone in public might
>constitute an invasion of privacy."


The same is true in the US, though theres a lot of Devil
in the Details for both Canada and the US. It is not
"absolute" that being in what appears to be a public
place removes all rights to privacy.

Specifically, the above referenced a commercial business
divulging information collected about individuals (in
this case, their identifiable photographs on google
maps).

This is close, but not quite the same as if a business
set a camera across the street and took pictures of
people passing by and looking at their display window.
Use of those photographs in any way connected with that
business would be a violation of the rights of the
people pictured if any part of them is uniquely
identifiable.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Good Man <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Cynicor <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>news:(E-Mail Removed) et:
>
>> Good Man wrote:
>>> It is *not* an invasion of privacy legally, though you may feel so
>>> morally. If you are standing in a public area and your photo is taken
>>> for a non-commercial purpose, you can be photographed.
>>>
>>> ie: paparazzi
>>> ie: closed-circuit police cameras

>>
>> Isn't paparazzi a commercial purpose, by definition?

>
>This is true, so there you go, i presume the usage is probably irrelevant.


That's "news", as opposed to "commercial purposes".

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Floyd L. Davidson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-13-2007
Paul J Gans <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Juarez <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Most of you think you have the right to take photos of people in public
>>without their permission. Well, in the U.S. you may get away with it but do
>>that in Canada and you may well get sued for it.

>
>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=42334

>
>>"In Canada, it seems that taking a photograph of someone in public might
>>constitute an invasion of privacy."

>
>I suspect that it depends on what you do with the photos. If
>they are taken for your noncommercial use only, you are quite
>in the clear.


That is a significant difference. The invasion of
privacy is one thing, the use of someone's person or
property for commercial purposes is separate issue. As
you note in the Google case, it's commercial use is at
question.

>There is in the US (and I expect in Canada as well) no legal
>expectation of total privacy when in public.


Generally true, but not quite. If you wear a dress, for
example... the parts of your body generally (but not
specifically) covered from view are private. A camera
embedded in the sidewalk to look up under dresses is not
legal, because even on a sidewalk there is an
expectation that what you hide from general view is
private.

Up a dress is obvious, but what about someone with a
scar on their forehead who tries to hide it with the
bill of a hat. Can you sneak up on them with a
telephoto lense and a flash, get a closeup shot of their
forehead... and give it to an insurance company?

I don't know. It looks the same to me though...

>It is what the
>word "public" means. On the other hand, sticking your camera
>into somebody's window and photographing them in the confines
>of a private home is a different matter entirely.


Much the same as being in a public place and sticking your
camera under their clothes.

>The Google situation, as per the URL above, is another matter
>as the pictures are used commercially.


Or maybe not...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola MCSE 4 11-15-2006 02:40 AM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola Microsoft Certification 3 11-14-2006 05:18 PM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd loyola MCSD 3 11-14-2006 05:18 PM
microsoft.public.certification, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsa, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcad, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse, microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd realexxams@yahoo.com Microsoft Certification 0 05-10-2006 02:35 PM
microsoft.public.dotnet.faqs,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework,microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.windowsforms,microsoft.public.dotnet.general,microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb Charles A. Lackman ASP .Net 1 12-08-2004 07:08 PM



Advertisments