New Canadian Law

Ann McRae

I didn't get all of the news item, but it looks like it will really impinge on photographers rights - protect a persons right to privacy and supposed to be aimed at child porn and camera phones!

Anyone heard the details?

ann

David_S85

Ann McRae wrote:

I didn't get all of the news item, but it looks like it will really impinge on photographers rights - protect a persons right to privacy and supposed to be aimed at child porn and camera phones!

Anyone heard the details?

ann

What law is this? I haven't heard or read anything about whatever you are posting about yet. Are cameras illegal there now or something???

Anyone?

Brett

I briefly heard something about this last night, something along the lines of not allowing photographs to be taking publicly to "protect" the privacy of celebrities, children, and other people. Seems people with camera's are viewed like people with guns these days. It goes to show how paranoid people are around strangers with cameras, harmfull or harless.

Just a few weeks ago, I was in Ottawa and sitting in the passanger seat of my dad's truck while he went into the bank. I was taking a few pictures of some of the large appartment buildings when a van pulled up beside us. I looked over and the driver looked at me and obviously saw my camera as I was holding it up. He looked back to the backseat for a few seconds then got out. I looked over to the van again and saw two little girls, probably 8 and 11 using a jacket to cover the driver side window on the front, the back was tinted dark already. I'm not going to jump to conclusions but it's safe to assume that their dad/ gaurdian told them something about "the man with the camera beside us". Even though I'm only 17, people still get scared.

Nee7x7

Ann McRae wrote:

I didn't get all of the news item, but it looks like it will really impinge on photographers rights - protect a persons right to privacy and supposed to be aimed at child porn and camera phones!

Anyone heard the details?

ann

Pretty scary stuff, Ann...

I'm not Canadian, so I don't know the details...(but I think the same thing is happening here - I think Andy complained about some new subway restrictions recently)

What might be a solution (if you could call it that) is that photographers who are legit could apply for special permits and get passes (similar to a press pass in the form of a badge) so they can shoot without being questioned?

Yeah, I know...it's like being in a police state, but what's the alternative? Get arrested everytime you try to shoot something that's forbidden?

These new laws sounds a LOT like gun control, only we can't register our "guns"!!!

Sheeesh!!!
~Nee :uhoh

luckyrwe

I get asked:
Do you have a permit to take pictures?
Do you have permission of the property owner?
Do you have a permit for that camera?
What are you going to do with those pictures?

I hand them one of these and say "Free Country*!"

http://filemagazine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf


* - may not apply in Canada....

GerryDavid

luckyrwe wrote:

Do you have a permit for that camera?

You shouldnt say that out loud, politicians *sp?* may get an idea. They try to licence/permit everything else, wouldnt be to surprising if they tried to do that to cameras.

:0)

luckyrwe

GerryDavid wrote:

You shouldnt say that out loud, politicians *sp?* may get an idea. They try to licence/permit everything else, wouldnt be to surprising if they tried to do that to cameras.

:0)

There was a fleeting thought at one time to only allow accredited photojournalists to have lenses over 200mm. Thank heavens it was only a fleeting thought.

Angelo

luckyrwe wrote:

I get asked:
Do you have a permit to take pictures?
Do you have permission of the property owner?
Do you have a permit for that camera?
What are you going to do with those pictures?

I hand them one of these and say "Free Country*!"

http://filemagazine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf


* - may not apply in Canada....

Lucky, that was very informative. thanks for sharing.

marlinspike

Canada has it's own story, but why do a get the feeling that a lot of people's troubles with this originate from living on the west coast?

Angelo

Papparazzi Phalanx
I experienced something yesterday afternoon that's apropos of this thread.

I left the office early to go in search of my winning "emotion" shot. (yeah right!).
Well I decided to head over to a Starbucks located at a new outdoor shopping center. I got my "venti-doubleshot-mocha-valencia" and headed out to the patio hoping I could snap some wonderful candids considering I was at a popular location near a busy intersection. Aware that photography might be verbotten on the premises I positioned myself so that I could take pictures of the street. I knew, if necessary, I could defend my actions by stating the obvious; I was shooting out into the street and not mall property.

There was a security guard closeby but he never said anything to me even after I picked off a couple of shots.

A moment later I heard his radio squawking with an urgent voice and all I could make out was "blah blah static static NO PHOTOGRAPHS static static blah blah". Well, I assumed I was done for. I waited for him to approach and scold me... but he didn't... and at that moment we all became aware of a ruckus behind us near the escalators.

Everyone turned to see a mob of papparazzi, torches ablaze, mobbing a group of 4 people. Turns out it was Jessica Simpson, her husband Nick Lachey and 2 other women I didn't recognize.

The reason I'm relating this tale is because of the behavior of the papparazzi. They were beyond obnoxious. These celebrities could hardly walk for the crowd of them. These guys were jumping everywhere, knocking things and people out of the way, blocking their way, yelling. It was shocking! I've lived in LA a long time and I've certainly heard about situations like this and seen it on TV but I've never experienced it first-hand. And trust me, I sooooo couldn't care less about celebrities, but my heart went out to them yesterday. They were treated so poorly by these animals who call themselves photographers.

Any wonder why people posture defensively when they encounter someone snapping pictures?

wxwax

Angelo, your point's very well taken. However, I would add that the majority of these 15-minute celebrities crave and court publicity to pump life into their talentless careers. The hypocrisy comes when they try to pick and choose what kind of publicity they get.

Many a famous actor/singer etc. glides under the radar, because they don't court media attention in the first place.

An exaggeration, I know, but there's another side to the paparazzi story.

David_S85

Angelo wrote:

Well I decided to head over to a Starbucks located at a new outdoor shopping center.

Angelo, you might find shooting at many Starbucks is difficult even sans celebrities. Many a forum threads have had posters descibing their experiences in or even nearby one of these stores. The managers are apparently trained to ban photograpy with a vengance :gun2 , which often involves calling the cops. As stores go, Starbucks ranks fairly high up there in their anti-photography rules.

As for me, my coffee grinder and machine would need to be broken for weeks before I'd pay Starbucks' prices for that stuff (statement and opinion made by me with apologies to Andy and Starbucks' stockholders).

Seamus

Did you take a picture of the paps?

Angelo

shay wrote:

Did you take a picture of the paps?

I tried but sad to say I wasn't quick enough to get something good. But I now have a portfolio topic for myself - "People with cameras" and living in Hollywood I have an abundant supply of tourist subjects.

Angelo

Photography and the Law
I'm so angry I could spit.

As I was strolling the neighborhood in search of shots yesterday I came upon the following scene:

Angelo

Angelo wrote:

I'm so angry I could spit.

As I was strolling the neighborhood in search of shots yesterday I came upon the following scene:

After taking a couple of shots from this vantage point, I moved around to the other side to survey another shot of these guys doing their job. At this point one of the EMTs shouted at me that I can't take pictures and to get lost. I shrugged my confusion at him and said I wasn't doing anything wrong which is when he called me a "sick bastard" and mumbled something about breaking my camera. (Mind you I never attempted to interfere nor position myself in any way to photograph the girl who had suffered a seizure - I only wanted a shot that conveyed "Civic Duty")

I stood still for a while and a Sheriff's Deputy approached me and gently informed me that photography was not permitted. Upon challenging that, he said it had to do with "privacy" laws.

I suggested that he was ill informed but that I would comply. Not liking that I challenged his "authority" he persisted in "quoting ordinance" and I, being the obstinate aries that I am, suggested that if I had indeed violated any ordinace I would appreciate knowing exactly what it is and be cited or arrested. He couldn't do that. I'm so upset about this I am about to contact the City Attorney's office for clarification and maybe the ACLU (I am a card-carrying member after all).

I'll report back later on my findings.

David_S85

The Photographer's Right
Angelo and others in this situation,

While the law actually protects photographers, shooting an emergency scene is a bit touchy :uhoh. A discrete distance (as far as you can be, really) from such an event is no doubt the better action. Their job is tense enough without a photog nearby. But what they told you is out of line, and probably legally incorrect.

Everyone should have a copy of this in their camera bag...

http://filemagazine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

(best to check for differences within the state you're shooting in. Also, this document is now two years old)

luckyrwe

They can arrest you if you interfere with the paramedics, of course, we all know that. But what if the medics are camera shy, or feel they are being watched for evidence and what they do may be used against them later? Is that interfering? Can you help it if the medic has a fear of cameras?

The cop may get on your case for loitering too. When I see stuff like this I keep walking, but you can get behind a slow gawker and you are not loitering in any way.

YOU DID NO WRONG.

Did you jay walk? Block traffic? Get in the medic's light? Set up a tripod? Impede pedestrians?

As far as privacy, the guy is in public, on a sidewalk! He is not at home, in a public restroom, in a changing room, or anywhere else where he may have an extectation of privacy. He is not even in a store where the store owner would have the last say so.

If the cop is worried about HIPPA then he needs to get the blue sheet out of his car and shroud the event.

I carry that PDF in my bag too but no cop is going to read for 5 minutes. Now he can try to block you without touching you, he is in public and can stand where he wants.

Call the paper, the city attorney, heck find out who the guy is and let him know the cops did not want pictures...do they have something to hide (insert Twilight Zone theme here)?!?!?!

ian408

While you can photograph things in public, I would think that out of
respect for the victim and in the interest of not interfering with the
emergency workers, you'd a) not shoot so as to indentify the victim
and b) not get arrested for "interference".

Otherwise, how is this type of photograph any different than a shot
of a celeb (except the victim is probably not in a position to ask you
not to)?


Ian

luckyrwe

Respect for the victim? That's not a legal matter, that is cultural. We don't look at people in the car next to us, it is legal to do so, but we offer others the privacy we expect for ourselves.

I have taken many pictures where the subject does not want their picture taken. I get used to the reactions. I don't break the law.

There are those who hate a camera pointed at them for a portrait! We have all been to parties or gatherings where people dash away from any camera, and they are dressed to the nines! (I hate my picture being taken, I think it's a waste of film. :giggle )

Besides, if all photographers respected privacy, the Sunday paper and 6 o'clock news would look pretty boring.

Angelo

David_S85 wrote:

Angelo and others in this situation,

While the law actually protects photographers, shooting an emergency scene is a bit touchy :uhoh. A discrete distance (as far as you can be, really) from such an event is no doubt the better action. Their job is tense enough without a photog nearby. But what they told you is out of line, and probably legally incorrect.

Everyone should have a copy of this in their camera bag...

http://filemagazine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

(best to check for differences within the state you're shooting in. Also, this document is now two years old)

David, you're absolutely correct but as I stated I was a respectable distance and never attempted to get "in their face". I printed out that piece last week when you originally posted it and it's great but not all encompassing.

mercphoto

luckyrwe wrote:

Respect for the victim? That's not a legal matter, that is cultural. We don't look at people in the car next to us, it is legal to do so, but we offer others the privacy we expect for ourselves.

I have taken many pictures where the subject does not want their picture taken. I get used to the reactions. I don't break the law.

There are those who hate a camera pointed at them for a portrait! We have all been to parties or gatherings where people dash away from any camera, and they are dressed to the nines! (I hate my picture being taken, I think it's a waste of film. :giggle )

Besides, if all photographers respected privacy, the Sunday paper and 6 o'clock news would look pretty boring.

Its not a convincing argument to me. If I was an EMT I wouldn't want my picture taken. And if I was the victim, I sure as hell wouldn't want my picture taken. Justifying it by saying "the news would be boring" doesn't cut it.

Angelo

Well I spoke to a prosecutor at the LA City Attorney's office. We had a pleasant albeit inconclusive discussion about this incident. He sympathized with my concern and suggested that the EMTs behavior was completely inappropriate.

We both agreed that he was probably acting out of pent up stress / frustration.
The attorney could not point to any known ordinances that prohibit photography and the ONLY reference I could find anywhere in the municipal code dealt with media/press passes that allows phtographers to enter an area cordoned off for investigations.

I will address this next with the watch commander at the LAFD.

wxwax

mercphoto wrote:

Its not a convincing argument to me. If I was an EMT I wouldn't want my picture taken. And if I was the victim, I sure as hell wouldn't want my picture taken. Justifying it by saying "the news would be boring" doesn't cut it.

Fair enough. But in a public setting, you can't legally require someone not to take your pic. That's the issue.

mercphoto

wxwax wrote:

Fair enough. But in a public setting, you can't legally require someone not to take your pic. That's the issue.

Ok, but when someone admits that its not an issue of respect for the person, its purely a matter of whether it is legal or not, is almost like saying "I don't care if I'm showing respect for people or not". (not saying the person's attitude was like that, just that comments like that come across that way).

Why does the Paparazi have such a bad image? Because they have zero respect for other people. The fact that celebs want the attention is not a defense of their actions.

I take issue at this for the very same reason I took issue with the person who returned perfectly acceptable merchandise (cameras) to CostCo purely for the "free upgrade path" it represented. There is a difference between obeying the law, and taking advantage of it.

Put a different way, if photographers showed a bit more respect, do you think laws wouldn't be changed in the first place? The changing of laws like this are reactions to those to cross the line in society's eye. Those who think that the only thing that matters is the letter of the law (like our illustrious past president Clinton, apparantly), fail to understand that you simply cannot put everything into the law books. Judgement and taste must be exercised by the people. And respect for others is part of that.

Photographing accident victims and crime victims is not a show of respect.

Harryb

Angelo did nothing wrong here. There was no invasion of privacy. He couldn't be expected to stop the EMT person and say "hey do you mind if I take a picture"?

If the EMT worker asked Angelo to stop and he didn't then thats another issue. Instead of asking the EMT did a macho number and escalated the situation.

Angelo

Merc

Perhaps I've missed the nuance of your argument and I'm willing to debate the issue. For the record, if you view the photo you'll see that there are 7 officials present at the scene (+ 2 bystanders) and there were 3 more deputies off-camera. (The one pedestrian bystander is hovering like a hungry hawk with no objection from the EMTs).

There is certainly a fine line between interference and freedom laws and I'm not confusing them nor am I attempting to blur the line but you can not discuss one without the other.

I never came close to snapping the victim and my physical appearance could not possibly have given that suggestion as I respectfully gave wide berth to this operation.

Privacy issues aside, I still would never snap the patient in this scene becasue it just isn't in my nature but I frankly could not care less about the EMTs personal feelings about being photographed (outside the scope of interference) as he is a public employee and this was NOT personal.

Besides I was never in a position to include the EMT in question in a shot. He was simply attempting to exert a self imposed mask of authority in a matter of which he is ill informed.

"please don't", "that flash is bothersome", "please, we're busy"... any such comment would have been understandable but he crossed the appropriate/legal boundary with his statement: "get out of here, you CAN'T take pictures without a permit". it is that singular statement that is at the root of my point. I hope I've clarified this.

wxwax

merc, I respect the high standard to which you hold others and presumably yourself. That's a good thing.

However, what you're suggesting is that it's morally wrong to shoot pictures of people in distress.

Have you stopped to consider the First Amendment implications of your position?

Have you contemplated what great and informative photographs would never have been created, had all photographers adhered to the moral code you espouse?

Luckily, others have, and have concluded that the infinitesimal harm done to those being photographed is vastly outweighed by the benefit to all of us in a free and open society.

ian408

Bill nicely sums up my feeling.

Note that I am not suggesting news photograpers not shoot the scene
but instead shoot it in a way that conveys the information and respects
the privacy of the patient. Nor did I ever suggest that it was illegal to
do so.

Ian

wxwax

ian408 wrote:

Note that I am not suggesting news photograpers not shoot the scene
but instead shoot it in a way that conveys the information and respects
the privacy of the patient.

Ian, I have no idea what that means. I doubt anyone actually trying to make an image would either. Talk about a fuzzy directive.

ian408

wxwax wrote:

Ian, I have no idea what that means. I doubt anyone actually trying to make an image would either. Talk about a fuzzy directive.

It means you can take a picture that shows an accident victim, the scene
and those working and respecting the victim's privacy. I should have probably
added that those treating shouldn't be concerned about their pictures
being taken.

Ian