Castanet

Good point, we are All paying for the stupidity of others.

StraitTalk wrote:Gotcha!
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i240/ ... G_0828.jpg
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i240/ ... G_0830.jpg

Tanning Business plastered to the back window to boot. You should be ashamed.

More so because she'll kill her dog if in a accident!! She shouldn't own one!

French Castanut wrote:I think people can sue you for posting their pictures without their consent.

A street is a public place. Your back yard has no expectation of privacy. You can be photographed in both places!!

StraitTalk wrote:Gotcha!
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i240/ ... G_0828.jpg
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i240/ ... G_0830.jpg

Tanning Business plastered to the back window to boot. You should be ashamed.

is it not illegal to drive with a dog on your lap?

Ken7 wrote:A street is a public place. Your back yard has no expectation of privacy. You can be photographed in both places!!

The Supreme Court disagrees. What you are assuming is a widely-held false belief.

The Supreme Court, in the jointly-written decision of several justices, ruled that the unauthorized taking of a photograph is, in fact, a violation of a person’s right to privacy if that person is the subject of the photograph, rather than an incidental character in it:

Supreme Court wrote:Since the right to one’s image is included in the right to respect for one’s private life, it is axiomatic that every person possesses a protected right to his or her image. This right arises when the subject is recognizable. There is, thus, an infringement of the 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.

The case (and damages awarded) gets stronger for the subject as “moral prejudice” increases.

"

Woodenhead"The Supreme Court disagrees. What you are assuming is a widely-held false belief.

The Supreme Court, in the jointly-written decision of several justices, ruled that the unauthorized taking of a photograph is, in fact, a violation of a person’s right to privacy if that person is the subject of the photograph, rather than an incidental character in it:
Since the right to one’s image is included in the right to respect for one’s private life, it is axiomatic that every person possesses a protected right to his or her image. This right arises when the subject is recognizable. There is, thus, an infringement of the 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.

The case (and damages awarded) gets stronger for the subject as “moral prejudice” increases.

Do you have a case I'd like to read it.

Further to, think where the media would be IF that was the case. Standing infront of the courthouse photographing accused persons etc.

nd we see an idiot on the road, you bet I will be looking into the cab of that vehicle to see why he/she is being an idiot on the road, and when my camara is with me I will take the time to take a shot if I c

talking on the phone and driving is bad mkay.driving with your dog on your lap is bad mkay .bust em all road man .its what your spirit is moving you to do .thankyou. careful while driving and operating your camera phone.

Holding a phone, holding a camera are both distractions from driving. You think you are above the distracted driving law?

skydawg wrote:Holding a phone, holding a camera are both distractions from driving. You think you are above the distracted driving law?

It's easy enough to have your passenger take the photo (which is what happened in the OP).

Right a passenger could take it. Not so sure in this case.

To the little Asian girl this a.m. travelling at a high rate of speed passing everyone.. wake up please. You and your texting will kill you one day. More so, injure someone other than yourself.

Foreign make vehicle black in color.... I wish it was ok to photo you when you looked at me and I shook my head at how stupid you are!

Woodenhead... no case law on that right to privacy in a public place... I'm still wishing to read it.


As Justin Bieber is theres a law.

Thanks!

I forgot about this thread.

Here's a good read, for starters:

http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/internet-law/legal-rights-in-a-photograph/

Woodenhead wrote:I forgot about this thread.

Here's a good read, for starters:

http://zvulony.ca/2010/articles/internet-law/legal-rights-in-a-photograph/

You might read that article a little more closely - it actually doesn't lend much support to your assertions of subject rights in photographs.

The one case mentioned (Aubry v. Éditions Vice-Versa inc., [1998] 1 SCR 591) relied upon a provision in Quebec's provincial charter. The particular case also dealt with subject rights with regards to commercial publication of said photograph. The article, towards the end, does underscore the point that copyright law continues to favour the photographer's rights over the subject's:

Canadian law is moving in the direction of granting more and more rights to the person who takes the photograph, as opposed to the person who commissions it or the person who is in it. The proposed modifications to the Copyright Act will grant broad rights to the creator of a photograph, and only very narrow rights to the person who pays for its creation. As for the subject of the photograph, Canadian courts will not go (or at least have not gone) very far in granting rights to someone who is pictured in a photograph.

The second case examined in that article has little relevance to this discussion as it deals with an entirely different circumstance: Publicity Rights. The subject's likeness (photograph) was used in a brochure as an advertisement for another entity. The courts have been rather consistent about "Publicity Rights" or "Model Rights" - you most definitely need the subject's permission. That, however, is a very different topic.

A photograph of a newsworthy event that contains a subject performing said newsworthy event in a public place isn't going to garner much disdain from any court.

(URL to case decision mentioned above: http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1998/1998canlii817/1998canlii817.html)

It's also interesting to note that the events of that case occured in 1988 appears to be governed by slightly older Quebec legislation:

39 It should be noted at the outset that since the events on which this case is based occurred in 1988, the matter is governed by the Civil Code of Lower Canada.

As with anything, it's all in how you choose to translate it.