Quote Originally Posted by mabman View Post
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 oneís 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 oneís image. There is an infringement of a personís 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.
Humm I didn't knew about this ruling. However, the La Presse affair is much more recent 2001 or 2002 I can't remember. Well, I think that it is a tricky legislation, since it won't be necessarely applied in all cases. Remember the Robert Doisenau affair in the '90 in France. There was a suit, even if legislation was not clear about the fact. I think we should simply continue to take picture of whatever we want and deal with issues later, and I doubt there will be any in most cases. After all, any criminal or suspect having its picture taken in Quebec by photojournalist could sue... and I don't think its happen very often.

Well, thanks for the precision!

Kris