At 03:29 PM 5/19/2003 -0400, you wrote:
In <3EC84168.F746BFF2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, on 05/18/03
at 10:28 PM, Larry <halpert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>That whole area is great for editorial type people shots.
Hasn't Canada enacted legislation recently that makes it quite dodgy to
photograph anyone even in public without their
signing a model release?
Les:
It's not legislation so much as a result of a Supreme Court case in Canada
in 1988 by the name of "Aubry v. Duclos et al.; Canadian Broadcasting
Corp., Intervener" (available in 157 Dominion Law Reports [4th] p.
577) wherein it became pretty much a duty for photographers in the
province of Quebec to obtain model releases for pictures they took of
people in public places. The exceptions to this requirement are (a) if
you're not planning on selling or displaying the picture in a public manner
(they're for your own private enjoyment, for instance), (b) if the person
in the image is not identifiable (say, they're in strong silhouette) and/or
(c) if the photo is considered "newsworthy" and is being used for that
purpose. The S.C. also had some other rules of thumb, but they're not
particularly hard-and-fast (i.e., they require interpretation and therefore
probably a court case).
Strictly speaking, the case was decided on the basis of Quebec's Charter of
Human Rights and Freedoms (not to be confused with the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms), and may or may not apply in the rest of
Canada. Various photo organizations around the country usually encourage
their members to get model releases as often as possible.
There may have been much more recent Federal legislation on point, but I'm
not aware of any (not that that says much... 8^> )
Garth
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|