did get someone with a hard hat approach me to say it was illegal to show/take any photos with the PCL logo.
Thank you posting that logo in dispute anyways in your pics. It really tells this person where they should stuff their unwarranted "legal" advice.

What a foolish individual, as if the person who said it is some kind of legal expert knowing all things about law.
You know, I would treat this the same way as someone in a hardhat coming over from a construction site giving me medical advice or telling what stocks I should invest in. "No offense there bub, but I think you're way out of your element here." And discretely move on in minding my own business.
 
I don't even understand this guy's theory. Does he think that by sticking up their logo they can stop you from taking photos of a public place? The reason they put up their logo is so that people know you are there! Why would they even want to stop you from taking photos?
 


He has no idea what he's talking about. You can take a picture of anything that's in a public place as long as you don't take on their property. What you do with that picture might be a different story.
 
Last edited:
While it's clear the person telling you it was illegal to take pictures was wrong, I'm curious if anyone has an idea as to why workers don't want people taking pictures of their construction site (I've heard of it happening to other UTers at other sites too)? Risk of documenting safety violations or something?
 
Last edited:
While it's clear the person telling you it was illegal to take pictures, I'm curious if anyone has an idea as to why workers don't want people taking pictures of their construction site (I've heard of it happening to other UTers are other sites too)? Risk of documenting safety violations or something?
From my tangential involvement in the industry, there's always some sensitivity around sharing publicly about projects. A building might have issues the PMs don't want getting out. Even if the issues aren't visible or obvious to the general public, companies are shifty about this sort of thing. I remember one of my previous employers didn't like talking about certain projects because even though they'd done their job properly, other contractors on the project hadn't, and the building didn't meet its performance goals. There was also some negative press about it which might explain this guy's twitchiness about someone taking photos.
 
You take a picture of anything that's in a public place as long as you don't take on their property.

It's never as clear cut as you think. Yes you can take pictures of public places, but if you are shooting using a long lens FROM a public place (sidewalk) ONTO private property (construction site), and taking photos of people (construction workers)... that can be considered an invasion of privacy. Your counter-argument would have to demonstrate that the photo was taken "in the public interest", which would supersede the privacy issue. A construction photo would likely not satisfy that argument, unless you showed unsafe working practices (for example).

However, their logo is a trademark which is intended for public display, and is not considered "original artwork" in the typical sense of copyright, so you do not need permission to shoot a trademark. However, if you were to defame or alter the trademark in your work, you could get into legal trouble.

In reality, nobody is going to waste time litigating either of the above for photos on a construction forum.

Source: My long and painful career as a film producer and production manager.
 
Last edited:
It's never as clear cut as you think. Yes you can take pictures of public places, but if you are shooting using a long lens FROM a public place (sidewalk) ONTO private property (construction site), and taking photos of people (construction workers)... that can be considered an invasion of privacy.

However, their logo is a trademark which is intended for public display, and is not considered "original artwork" in the typical sense of copyright, so you do not need permission to shoot a trademark. However, if you were to defame or alter the trademark in your work, you could get into legal trouble.

In reality, nobody is going to waste time litigating either of the above for photos on a construction forum.
I believe that the only limitation to public photography in Canada is under sec. 162 of the Criminal Code: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-162-20051101.html
Voyeurism

162 (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy
The language gets pretty graphic after that so I'll leave it out of here. The point is that for the image/video to be illegal, the subject must be somewhere with a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and not just be on private property. If a building has no walls or windows yet, it's safe to assume that one cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy. So take all the photos you want!
 
If a building has no walls or windows yet, it's safe to assume that one cannot claim a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I would agree with you in most cases, but someone may still challenge you, especially if you're shooting at grade over a hoarding, or through a fence gap. Again though, it's extremely unlikely that any of this would ever make it to court, and the most you're going to experience is bluster from someone on site.
 
They have nothing here. And the complaint was about the PCL logo and not of taking up-kilt/skirt shots of workers on site.
 
It's never as clear cut as you think. Yes you can take pictures of public places, but if you are shooting using a long lens FROM a public place (sidewalk) ONTO private property (construction site), and taking photos of people (construction workers)... that can be considered an invasion of privacy. Your counter-argument would have to demonstrate that the photo was taken "in the public interest", which would supersede the privacy issue. A construction photo would likely not satisfy that argument, unless you showed unsafe working practices (for example).

As a lawyer who's worked on cases where surveillance experts were hired to take photographs of people on private property (from public property), I can tell you this is not true. Any photography from public property is legal.

If you want to be private on your own property, draw the blinds. Might not be palatable to everyone, but that's the truth.

I think some confusion arises from the fact that certain jurisdictions do have stricter laws against surveillance and privacy vis-a-vis photography, but in Ontario this is all fair game.
 
I think some confusion arises from the fact that certain jurisdictions do have stricter laws against surveillance and privacy
Ottawan is correct. I just dug out my old notes from our meetings with our lawyers, and we were shooting in Toronto, Nova Scotia, Mexico City and London, England, so it looks like the advice against shooting long-lenses onto private property was general.

So feel free to ignore everything I said (apart from the trademark issue, which to my knowledge is fine in Ontario!) 😄
 
As a film producer and production manager, the shots/footage you were considering taking were probably for a commercial purpose, which raises very different issues from a hobbyist out on the street with a camera.
Yes, and it gets even more complicated, as a documentary film is considered "editorial" and a feature film is considered "commercial", both of which are treated differently. It's horribly confusing, so I leave it to the lawyers!
 
It can be very confusing, but generally if you're just a random person walking around with a camera taking shots of a publicly viewed place with no interest in making money off your shots, the only restriction is the one that someMidTowner noted.
 

Back
Top