|
|
|
-
 Originally Posted by BrianL
Not sure the expectation of privacy is relavent when it comes to image making of a nonperson. If it were, then there would not be issues with photographing persons on the street and publishing them. This area of law was not where I practiced and there are differences between the US and Canada. Privacy and IP are exclusive legal issues.
Copyright is a civil, not criminal, matter so the police should never be involved unless they are alleging a criminal act (such as trespass). Asking someone to delete an image (or expose a roll of film) is destruction of evidence and cannot be made to happen without a judge's permission - so you cannot be charged with refusing to destroy evidence or civil disobedience. Further, the copyright holder would be required to show that the photograph violated copyright which would be almost impossible since you are not making a copy of the building, but an image of the building. You are also free to photograph people and publish those images, as long as the images are not for commercial gain and do not present the person in a slanderous or negative manner. Photojournalism, artistic license and editorial usage are well established uses - even if you took a photo of a person and wanted to sell a print, you could. If you wanted to use the image to sell a soda or as an example of licentious behavior, that would be different.
Once a photographer is convinced that the camera can lie and that, strictly speaking, the vast majority of photographs are "camera lies," inasmuch as they tell only part of a story or tell it in a distorted form, half the battle is won. Once he has conceded that photography is not a "naturalistic" medium of rendition and that striving for "naturalism" in a photograph is futile, he can turn his attention to using a camera to make more effective pictures.
Andreas Feininger
-
Originally Posted by BrianL
Did you get permission from the manager of the Flatiron Building? Here in Toronto you can not photograph the one here for any reason without getting permission as it is used in so many movies. Not even for private, nonommercial purposes. I was in the grill one day when someone was taking photos and the manager walked out and politely asked the person to delete the files or turn over the film and he;d process it an send the photos taken that were not of the building plus pay for a replacement roll. The person told the manager to buzz off and within a few minutes an officer approached and suggested the person take the offer or accompany him to the local station. The person handed over the roll and his address and received what looked like a $10 bill. I asked the manager about the incident and he told me the building was copyrighted as an image and taking a photo of it without permission was an criminal offence. I then asked it they would give permission and his response was if for noncommerical use, no problem but othewise there was a fee for a shooting permit. Up here many places seem to have similar requirements including public parks. I was once approached while shooting downtown by a security guard of a building exterior I was photographing. He said that he was to make inquiries of a person if a tripod was used or what appeared to be a professional camera. He was not totally convinced I was not a professional as I had the Meastro tripod (yes, it was my field tripod and has been for some 20 years) as well as my Bronica system and the Polaroid Pack camera, think it was the 180. However, he just said okay when I handed him my business card showing I was a senior employee of a big 4 accounting firm but suggested I lose the tripod in the future.
Funny but I've shot the old Gooderham Building often with all kinds of gear and tripods and never had this issue--ever. City Hall doesn't apparently object, either:
http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/culture/d...0?OpenDocument
It's a heavily tourist-infested area down there, so much so I doubt there's dedicated manpower sufficient to harrass every gawker with a phonecam or p&s.
Not sure a CA designation is a guaranteed "get-out-of-jail-free" card 8^)
Last edited by CGW; 07-11-2011 at 11:34 AM.
-
Methinks I'll be heading downtown in the next few days to take a few shots of this building , just to see what happens :-)
Nikon 35mm, Mamiya 645 & RB67, Leica IIIb, other bits and pieces
-
Originally Posted by mopar_guy
Somebody argued with you in NYC? That's hard to believe.
Good one, that made me laugh.
But you know I've been shooting in NYC for years and I've had very few problems. One time a guy said I couldn't shoot his store window. I just said too late and walked away. Another time a parking garage attendant said no pictures. I was shooting my own reflection in one of those convex mirrors. I said why not? He said it's against the law. I said no it's not as long as I stay on the sidewalk. He just no pictures. So I said the same thing again, too late.
-
Surely if you're in a public place you relinquish your right to privacy.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Originally Posted by BrianL
Did you get permission from the manager of the Flatiron Building? Here in Toronto you can not photograph the one here for any reason without getting permission as it is used in so many movies. Not even for private, nonommercial purposes. I was in the grill one day when someone was taking photos and the manager walked out and politely asked the person to delete the files or turn over the film and he;d process it an send the photos taken that were not of the building plus pay for a replacement roll. The person told the manager to buzz off and within a few minutes an officer approached and suggested the person take the offer or accompany him to the local station. The person handed over the roll and his address and received what looked like a $10 bill. I asked the manager about the incident and he told me the building was copyrighted as an image and taking a photo of it without permission was an criminal offence. I then asked it they would give permission and his response was if for noncommerical use, no problem but othewise there was a fee for a shooting permit. Up here many places seem to have similar requirements including public parks. I was once approached while shooting downtown by a security guard of a building exterior I was photographing. He said that he was to make inquiries of a person if a tripod was used or what appeared to be a professional camera. He was not totally convinced I was not a professional as I had the Meastro tripod (yes, it was my field tripod and has been for some 20 years) as well as my Bronica system and the Polaroid Pack camera, think it was the 180. However, he just said okay when I handed him my business card showing I was a senior employee of a big 4 accounting firm but suggested I lose the tripod in the future.
Regarding copyrighted landmark: Reading all the replies and thinking about this further, I wonder what would have happened if the photographer refused to hand over the film. In order to be arrested he would have to have broken the law. After looking at the link to the laws regarding photography in Toronto, I can't see where a law was broken. Here in NYC, there was a recent well known case where a guy was shooting, no tripod, in the subway. A cop told him no photos and he got out a printed copy of the rules about shooting in the subway that showed he was within the law. The cop became upset and arrested him. In the paper, I think it was The Times, it said the guy with the camera, said good, you've just made me a lot of money. There was a law suit for false arrest, and the city settled. The morrow being, arrest without having broken the law is unlawful.
-
I will just add that regardless of what the law says concerning privacy in public places, there are circumstances and situations where people have personal and private reasons why they don't want their photographs taken. I don't know what prompted OP's supposed subject to ask for removal of the photograph. Some of them are truly sad situations and the fear is real.
But if someone asks me to delete mine, I'll try to honor their requests. No, I will not tell them they should stay home. In these cases, in my mind, their needs superceeds my rights. I don't ask for details either. Using film makes it little more difficult but in digital, removal is easy.
I will not explain why I think this way or what I know, so please don't ask.
Develop, stop, fix.... wait.... where's my film?
-
Originally Posted by artonpaper
The morrow being, arrest without having broken the law is unlawful.
Technically there is no arrest for something which is not illegal. You can be arrested for something you didn't do but were suspected of doing but not arrested for something which you cannot be arrested for!
When you are arrested you must be told the reason why and if that reason is not valid, it is not an arrest (or it's a wrongful arrest).
Steve.
-
Originally Posted by tkamiya
Some of them are truly sad situations and the fear is real.
Yes...
I know I will be flamed but there is nothing wrong with NOT being some kind of bad ass photographer and arguing for the sake of it. Personally I think many of you APUGers are just itching for a fight or arrest.
-
Originally Posted by tkamiya
I will not explain why I think this way or what I know, so please don't ask.
I will not explain why I agree with you and your attitude about honoring people's requests for privacy, so please don't ask. 
|
|
Adv Reply
