Thank you posting that logo in dispute anyways in your pics. It really tells this person where they should stuff their unwarranted "legal" advice.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
That's interesting. Our entertainment lawyers were not quite so optimistic. Maybe they are just playing it safer to avoid us getting embroiled in arguments.
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.
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!