News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
EagleEye said:
Because if you react, they will turn it around and make themselves the victims. The best thing you can do when they're taking pics of sitters is nothing. Besides, unless you're taking pictures of people in their house, there is nothing to prevent a person from taking your picture.

Also, Graeme has stopped a lot of the silly stuff since his movements are always tweeted. He watches the RFMG twitter feed like a hawk.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I once tweeted an off-colour joke I overhead Doug make and moments later Graeme poked his head out of the office to see who tweeted it.

Graeme's also started keeping a Twitter account that he randomly activates and deactivates to tweet at sit-in members.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
This is a question I've been meaning to ask: are these guys really that intimidating? Why doesn't someone slap the phone from the guy's hand? If some jerk was taking a photo of me, regardless of circumstance, without my permission, he'd be eating the camera. WTF?
Click to expand...

It's easy to pretend to be a badass on the Internet, but if you're on public property then that's illegal and you can't do that. It'd be legal to smack you right back in self-defence.

Violence is never the answer.
 
EagleEye said:
Because if you react, they will turn it around and make themselves the victims. The best thing you can do when they're taking pics of sitters is nothing. Besides, unless you're taking pictures of people in their house, there is nothing to prevent a person from taking your picture.

Also, Graeme has stopped a lot of the silly stuff since his movements are always tweeted. He watches the RFMG twitter feed like a hawk.
Click to expand...

Bull. I'd love to have the argument on CP24 where some jerk is taking a photo of me, and HE's the victim when I slap the phone out of his hand. Passive is enabling.
 
euler said:
It's easy to pretend to be a badass on the Internet, but if you're on public property then that's illegal and you can't do that. It'd be legal to smack you right back in self-defence.

Violence is never the answer.
Click to expand...

Point taken - maybe I'm not as badass as I think I am. But it's also illegal to take a photo of me w/o my permission, or so the TDSB tells me when they're talking about my daughters. I'm pretty sure I win that argument in the court of public opinion.

And... 'Violence is never the answer?' Hahahaha... are you trying to make me go all Godwin on you? If you are taking a photo of me without my permission, you either stop or lose your camera. That's no more violent than the original threat implied by the photo. I'm not advocating punching him in the face FFS. I'm advocating objecting vehemently to having a photo taken.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
Bull. I'd love to have the argument on CP24 where some jerk is taking a photo of me, and HE's the victim when I slap the phone out of his hand. Passive is enabling.
Click to expand...

Well if you did that you could get arrested AND he'd own the copyright to the photo as the photographer.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
But it's also illegal to take a photo of me w/o my permission
Click to expand...

As someone who likes to engage in street photography - no, it's not. It's really not. If you don't want to be photographed, don't go out in public. It's perfectly legal to take a picture of someone in public. 100%.

I carry thousands of dollars of camera equipment with me. If you knocked it out of my hands, I would press criminal charges and I would sue you in civil court. And I would win.
 
euler said:
So it's OK for Rob Ford to hit cameramen too? Same logic.

Such ignorance.
Click to expand...

Euler, you're trolling at this point. If the Mayor stopped, answered 2 questions w/o obfuscation and then moved on, the press would stop chasing him. How in any way, shape, or form does his failure to do that simple task which is part of his job correlate with a member of the public not objecting to his or her photo being taken in a transparent attempt to intimidate them into silence?

Standing up to a schoolyard bully is not the same as being a schoolyard bully. Take you relativist crap elsewhere.
 
EagleEye said:
Well if you did that you could get arrested AND he'd own the copyright to the photo as the photographer.
Click to expand...

© isn't granted automatically just because you took a photo. if the person in the photo hasn't signed a release, © is meaningless, since you don't have permission to do anything with the image.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
Euler, you're trolling at this point.
Click to expand...

I am? God that's rich.

thedeepend said:
© isn't granted automatically just because you took a photo. if the person in the photo hasn't signed a release, © is meaningless, since you don't have permission to do anything with the image.
Click to expand...

You can do almost anything you want except distribute it for commercial purposes. If you publish it (not sell it), you could get sued if that photo is somehow damaging to the person you didn't get a release from.

And yes, copyright is granted automatically, even if you can't technically use it commercially.

http://ambientlight.ca/laws/overview/

Read up, guys.

edit: People can ask you to stop though and it's harassment if you don't. So if RoFo's driver tries to photograph you, just tell him to stop and then inform him that he is harassing you, then file a police report. Nothing much will happen, unfortunately, but it's what you have.
 
Last edited:
euler said:
As someone who likes to engage in street photography - no, it's not. It's really not. If you don't want to be photographed, don't go out in public. It's perfectly legal to take a picture of someone in public. 100%.

I carry thousands of dollars of camera equipment with me. If you knocked it out of my hands, I would press criminal charges and I would sue you in civil court. And I would win.
Click to expand...

that's fine for street photography. try to do anything with those images commercially and you will quickly discover that a model release is an absolute requirement if the person is recognizable.

i've made a dozen documentaries for television, and i can tell you that there are no exceptions to this. if the person is recognizable and you don't have a signed release, the shot comes out of the film or their identity is obscured.

if all that's happening is your photos on a website somewhere you can get away with it. otherwise: no.
 
euler said:
As someone who likes to engage in street photography - no, it's not. It's really not. If you don't want to be photographed, don't go out in public. It's perfectly legal to take a picture of someone in public. 100%.

I carry thousands of dollars of camera equipment with me. If you knocked it out of my hands, I would press criminal charges and I would sue you in civil court. And I would win.
Click to expand...

Ah. I get it now. We're not actually talking about this incident. So: 1. If you asked to take a picture of me or my family, or took one for innocuous purposes, I would be happy you thought we were photogenic enough to merit recording. However, if 2. you took an upskirt of my 17 year old daughter, your camera would be smashed. Ford's lackey was not recording the sunset, he was trying to intimidate. If you can't see the difference between the two, someday your camera will be smashed and your suit will die at the hands of your own lawyer when he says, "but why wouldn't you have asked permission to take pictures of the people in the council chamber before you started?"
 
thedeepend said:
that's fine for street photography. try to do anything with those images commercially and you will quickly discover that a model release is an absolute requirement if the person is recognizable.

i've made a dozen documentaries for television, and i can tell you that there are no exceptions to this. if the person is recognizable and you don't have a signed release, the shot comes out of the film or their identity is obscured.

if all that's happening is your photos on a website somewhere you can get away with it. otherwise: no.
Click to expand...

Well, that's precisely what I said, isn't it? I have friends in the pro photography and modelling world, I know all about that.

Riverdale Rink Rat said:
Ah. I get it now. We're not actually talking about this incident. So: 1. If you asked to take a picture of me or my family, or took one for innocuous purposes, I would be happy you thought we were photogenic enough to merit recording. However, if 2. you took an upskirt of my 17 year old daughter, your camera would be smashed. Ford's lackey was not recording the sunset, he was trying to intimidate. If you can't see the difference between the two, someday your camera will be smashed and your suit will die at the hands of your own lawyer when he says, "but why wouldn't you have asked permission to take pictures of the people in the council chamber before you started?"
Click to expand...

Upskirts are a different thing entirely, obviously.

I know he was trying to intimidate, but that in itself is not criminal (or grounds for a civil suit) unless you asked him to stop and he continued. Attacking him (or his camera) is not the answer, and would only get *you* in hot water.
 
Oh goody - here comes a 5 page smackdown on photographers' rights.

If you camp out in front of their office every day (which is your right), don't be surprised if they try to bait you into losing your shit (which is sleazy but that's how this stuff works). It's like basketball - If you want to play you need to be ready for some incidental contact, even if it's not physical.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top