Quote Originally Posted by kristopher_lawrence View Post

I live in Quebec, and from what I know, the law is more specific (remeber we are not on canadian common law). Actually, you don't have the right to sell or publish a picture of a person if the image can cause harm to his/her reputation. Otherwise, a person in a public place is not protected from photographers...

Here how this law become true: a couple years ago, a newspaper ĞLa Presseğ was doing a study about obesity. A photographer took a picture or a rather big woman eating a hamburger on the street. However, the women complaned because a lot of persons were making fun of her after seeing the pricture. She went in court and won.

I don't know about Manitoba, but, if I am not wrong, it is ok in Quebec to show or sell street photo if the pics cannot cause harm.

I can't find a reference to anything by La Presse, but the case I'm thinking of was about photographer Gilles Duclos in the late 1990's. From the Supreme Court's ruling: "The right to one’s image is an element of the right to privacy under s. 5 of the Quebec Charter. If the purpose of the right to privacy is to protect a sphere of individual autonomy, it must include the ability to control the use made of one’s image. There is an infringement of a person’s right to his or her image and, therefore, fault as soon as the image is published without consent and enables the person to be identified."

So, it's the court's opinion (majority decision) that Quebec's law governing the right to privacy includes the right to "control the use made of one's image" in general, no indication of whether harm was done or not.