Does that mean Nikon's auto-photo mode is illegal?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 9, 2011.

  1. RichA

    John A. Guest

    Not if it's artistic or editorial use.
     
    John A., Jul 10, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Mike Guest

    Why not? How is his "artistic use" any different than me shooting in my
    studio? Those subject in my studio have actually agreed to being
    photographed.
    Pretty well any photo taken for any form of publication should have a
    release.

    Mike
     
    Mike, Jul 10, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Mike Guest

    Why? Henry's is private property, legally people that enter private
    property has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If it was at a parade
    down Yonge Street, it would be a public place.

    Mike.
     
    Mike, Jul 10, 2011
    #23
  4. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    It's not where the shot was taken, but what was done with the shot.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 10, 2011
    #24
  5. RichA

    John A. Guest

    Maybe it's different there, but when I go out to a store I consider
    myself to be out in public.
     
    John A., Jul 10, 2011
    #25
  6. RichA

    Guest Guest

    it may be private property but it's open to the public. there is no
    expectation of privacy in a store, other than in the bathroom or
    dressing room if it's a clothing store.
     
    Guest, Jul 10, 2011
    #26
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Just goes to show, there are plenty of people who'd like to deprive us
    of our rights to take pictures of anything, or anybody they don't want
    pictures of.
     
    RichA, Jul 10, 2011
    #27
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    You're talking nonsense. From a practical standpoint, tens of
    THOUSANDS of shots get taken at Henry's stores. There are many
    private property venues where photography is expressly permitted.
    Like the Eaton Centre.
     
    RichA, Jul 10, 2011
    #28
  9. RichA

    Mike Guest

    I think the issue of consent is what the Courts would decide on. Plus
    public place versus private property.

    Mike
     
    Mike, Jul 10, 2011
    #29
  10. RichA

    Mike Guest

    No Stores, malls etc are in law "private property" you are invited in as
    a customer. This is why he had to ask permission, however he lied about
    taking pictures. His intent was to install a remote app.
     
    Mike, Jul 10, 2011
    #30
  11. RichA

    Mike Guest

    It's not nonsense, study law. I guess you missed law classes when you
    worked on you metallurgy degree..
     
    Mike, Jul 10, 2011
    #31
  12. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    Consent might be a factor, but use is the most important. I can take
    your photo without your consent, anywhere, but there's no problem if I
    keep it for my own use. If I publish it, even to a blog, I might have
    a problem without consent.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 10, 2011
    #32
  13. RichA

    Mike Guest

    That is my point too. In Quebec the Quebec Supreme Court did uphold a
    decision

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubry_v._Éditions_Vice-Versa_inc

    Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591, was a decision
    by the Supreme Court of Canada in which the claimant, Pascale Claude
    Aubry, brought an action against Éditions Vice-Versa for publishing a
    photo taken of her in public. She claimed the photographing was a
    violation of her right to privacy under the Quebec Charter of Human
    Rights and Freedoms. The Court held that under Quebec law a photographer
    can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture
    unless permission has been obtained from the subject.

    The Court limited this requirement to exclude persons whose photographs
    were taken during an event of public interest. That is, a person of
    public interest or equally an unknown person who is implicated in a
    public matter cannot claim image rights. Consequently, anyone's
    photograph that was incidental to a photo of some matter will be treated
    as part of the background and will not be able to claim their rights
    were violated.
     
    Mike, Jul 10, 2011
    #33
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    They may do so, if they wish. My main participation is to point out the
    intellectual deficiencies in the Op's comment. I choose not to, even
    though by training I have the background and experience to do so. But,
    we really do not have sufficient facts to know what really happened.
     
    PeterN, Jul 10, 2011
    #34
  15. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    If I use the bathroom there I would have an expectation of privacy. If I
    pick my nose in the center aisle, I have no reasonable expectation of
    privacy. Henry's, while privately owned is considered a place of public
    accommodation. (At least in the US)
     
    PeterN, Jul 10, 2011
    #35
  16. RichA

    PeterN Guest


    Jinx ;-)
     
    PeterN, Jul 10, 2011
    #36
  17. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    You're confusing the issues. the concept of private vs public has to do
    whether the public at large has a right to be present. I do not need
    your permission to take your picture in a restaurant, but I do need your
    permission to do so in your home. As tony Cooper pointed out, regardless
    of where I take your picture I need your consent to publish your image,
    except in connection with a news story. And that exception only applies
    if I take your photo in a public place. If I decide to do a news story
    about your studio, I need your consent and if any other individuals are
    to be included in my story, I require their consent. I do not always
    need their consent if I am doing a story about a public venue.
     
    PeterN, Jul 10, 2011
    #37
  18.  
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 17, 2011
    #38
  19. RichA

    John A. Guest

    Eventually they'll get tired and just walk amok. Maybe take a nap
    amok.
     
    John A., Jul 17, 2011
    #39
  20. RichA

    Guest Guest

    according to published reports, he did not ask about installing any
    software. he only asked if he could take photos, which more than likely
    was interpreted to mean 'in the store with the camera he was carrying'
    not via software he was installing.
    he installed his software every single day, because the machines are
    wiped at night and re-imaged.
    no password is needed to install to the account that is always logged
    in. as far as i know he didn't crack root and install it systemwide,
    which wasn't needed anyway.
    i'm going by published reports.
    however, *not* being an apple employee means they *can't*.
    he didn't borrow the computers.
     
    Guest, Jul 20, 2011
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.