Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post

The sentence that you highlighted in the excerpt you included in post #43 came from one of the dissenting judges - so it is not the law.
Are you sure?
It's a separate paragraph between two dissenting opinions (Lamer above, Major below). I thought it belonged to the main body of the sentence as it acknowledges the right of the person portrayed. The dissenting judges IIGIR would have decided against the portrayed person and in favour of the publisher.

Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
The majority decision is the law - and it essentially found that personal feelings of "embarrassment" are enough to found a claim of damages.
Well, the majority decision is a sentence. If the feeling of "embarrassment" is enough to found a claim of damages, this means it only applies to "embarrassing" images, and that "embarrassment" must be acknowledged by the judge, isn't it?

What I suspect and what you seem to confirm is that no embarrassment, no damages.

Embarrassment can cause damages in Italy as well, and a bit everywhere, Québec not being special in this matter.