Which right is "right"? -- Photography Laws

[zach_maurer]

<p>So, to describe the scene, I was walking on the sidewalk of a busy shopping area taking some candid photos in Vancouver, BC. And, i notice on my left a eye catching shoe store window layout, which nicely frames the people inside. So, I wait a second, compose and take a photo. I then proceed to go into the neighboring store. About 30 seconds later, I hear the words "Yeah, i'm sure the kid in the green jacket took a photo!" And a fairly arrogant lady puffs in to the store, interupts a conversation and proceeds to tell me, that "I must delete the photo of her store." I reply that it's film and i'm not going to torch the entire roll. She then asks me to return the photo to her when i get it developed. I ask her name and she replies snootily, "You don't need to know my name." (must be a secret agent) </p>

<p>Anywho, in an effort to be polite and figure out what the hell she's talking about i follow her back to her store and give her my name and ph #. She then tells me how i cant take photos because some "copyright" law, and furthermore, that if i continue to take pictures "here" I'm just going to get sued. </p>

<p>Basically, is she off her rocker?<br>

As I understand it, it's not tresspassing as she never said no photographs or asked me to leave. More importantly, I wasn't even on her property. Also, I'm fairly sure that copyright laws do not apply to artistic photographs purely intended for artistic and personal uses. <br>

Please, if someone could clarify these laws and boundaries, it would be much appreciated.<br>

Also, do i even owe her the negative? </p>

[bobcossar]

<p>I live in British Columbia, and I am a pro. photographer. Every once in a while something like this occurs.....God knows why. </p>

<p>That said, I cannot see that you did anything wrong at all......Perhaps if her store window display was copyrighted...DUH.......and if you were going to use the image commercially then, and only at that time, she might be able to file something. If she could find a lawyer silliy enough to take the case.</p>

<p>I am not a lawyer but I can't see that you owe her anything at all.....regards, Bob</p>

[zach_maurer]

<p>Thanks very much, and yes silly is just the right word.</p>

<p>In the U.S. (at least for sure) there is some act or process regarding usage and a photographer's right to take pictures of copyrighted materials. The general gist is "everything within reason." Does anyone know the specific name of this topic or know if such a legal idea is recognized in Canada?</p>

[chad_hahn]

<p>Download a couple copies of the Photographers Bill of Rights and keep them in your camera bag. I had a similar thing happen to me when I took a picture of a sign at run down motel. I was on the sidewalk and never on motel grounds but the owner came after me and told me I couldn't take any pictures of his business. I gave him a copy the the PBR and told him that yes I could. <br>

He huffed and puffed but didn't do anything. It's a shame the picture didn't turn out the way I wanted.</p>

<p>Chad</p>

[jgredline]

<p>I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S. ''Any shot'' taken from public property is fair game and that includes shooting into Private property. This is why Paparazzi get away with so much. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p><em>"Every once in a while something like this occurs.....God knows why."</em><br>

<em></em><br>

It happens because some people intrinsically believe they have the right to allow or deny photographs of themselves and everything they own. This is common and its impossible to overcome generically - you just have to deal with it as you find it, and some people will just not want to believe you. So a written "photographers rights statement (search here under Bert Krages) can be useful<br>

Also because a lot of people -including quite a lot of people that take a lot of pictures- don't understand the difference between being able to take a photograph and the use to which that photograph can be put. Its at least possible that any commercial use of the photograph you describe might require a signed release, and a lot of people who know that they can at least in theory control the commercial usage of a photograph think that means they can dictate whether the picture is taken.</p>

 

[sarah_fox]

<p>Disclaimer: I'm not an attorney. I just read an attorney's book. (You should too!) Consult your own attorney before believing anything I'm saying...</p>

<p>If you were shooting a pic from the street through someone's bedroom window, even if the drapes were drawn, you'd be in a gray zone. However, people do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in a shoe store, and you're free to snap away. They can still sue you, and you'll have to defend yourself if they do, but they won't win.</p>

<p>Regarding any trademarked store logos, branded logos on shoe boxes, or whatever... That can be included in your photograph under the principles of "fair use." Do a search for that phrase and read up on it. It can be a rather complicated concept. However, in my estimation, a photo of the goings-on inside a shoe store would not likely stray from fair use of anyone's intellectual property.</p>

<p>Chad's and David's approach is a good one. I carry a copy of the Photog's Bill of Rights myself for just such occasions, although I've never had to use it.</p>

<p>re the negative: Personally, I don't like to make enemies, and I would give the woman my word that I wouldn't use the photograph (at least if it's not anything really special), even though I would have every right to under the law. I'd explain further that I do own the copyright on the photograph. (She needs an education.) I'd tell her I'd be happy to sell her a print at (name your price), but that I would still be the copyright holder. I'd also tell her I'd be happy to sign over the copyright to her, but that would come at a very high price (be specific). Under those terms, she'd also be entitled to the negative. For a lesser price, I'd license use of the photograph to her for a 1 year period, but she wouldn't get the negative. If she is merely interested that I will not use the photograph, then she has my word that I will not use it. My word is all she needs, and that is more than the law entitles her to. All she really needed to do in the first place was to ask me in a respectful and nonthreatening manner, as though I'm the decent enough sort of person that I am.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding any trademarked store logos, branded logos on shoe boxes, or whatever... That can be included in your photograph under the principles of "fair use."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is very wrong advice. First of all, fair use copyright is very different from fair use trademark. Fair use trademark generally refers to the written word, not images using the actual trademark. Fair use trademark is generally not an issue with photography. Second, fair use has a four factor test. It is important to understand the four factor test before considering anything "fair use."</p>

<p>Regarding the original question, most people here are not familiar with Canadian law. You will have to find out more from someone familiar with Canadian law. You will have to make sure you get advice from people who do know Canadian law if you really need it. Laws vary by country, and this can be significant.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> Please, if someone could clarify these laws and boundaries, it would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>For an answer you can rely on, you should consult with a Canadian attorney. I don't see how the speculation of US law pertains.</p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>One thing to remember for us American Posters is Canada has a slightly more restrictive and somewhat different view of freedom of speech. Lets just say it has a Canadian Flavor to it. It is very similar but still different, so things like the photographer's bill of rights and American First Amendment are irrelevant. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>If you run a Photo.net search on "Photographers Rights Canada" you'll find quite a lot thats relevent.</p>

[sknowles]

<p>Folks are right, see an attorney or read your rights, because we're only experienced at the law finding us than the law itself (unless someone here is both). I don't know of any street photographer who hasn't been stopped or questioned by people (from those walking by to store managers/owners and even security) about violating some (their thinking) laws. I'm always surprised when people in stores think you can look but not photograph their store (windows, doors, looking inside or whatever) and makes demands, except if you were with a newspaper or magazine of course. I also carry a copy of the Photographer's Bill of Rights, and even ask they call the police if they think I'm wrong.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Jeff, I realize everything I say is wrong, but I simply cannot agree with you on this point. How many times have you photographed a boxer with a logo embroidered or imprinted on his shorts without the manufacturer's permission and without paying compensation to the company? Can Nike or Adidas or whomever manufactured the shorts sue you for having taken or (gasp) having published those photographs? Nonsense! If you are in the habit of compensating these companies for incidental inclusion of their logos in your photographs, then I highly recommend you consult with an attorney, on the prospect that you might be able to stop this costly practice.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Zach, I missed the part about this being a Canadian issue. Here's a link that might get you started...<br>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_Canada">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_Canada</a></p>

<p> </p>

[sprouty]

<p><em>"Can Nike or Adidas...sue you for having...published those photographs?"</em><br>

Sarah, it depends entirely on how the images are used. So the answer is, in the US and in some instances of use, yes they can.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Sp, I fail to see how Nike could (successfully) sue a newspaper or photographer for publishing a photo of a knockout punch, just because there's a tiny swoosh somewhere in the frame. If, on the other hand, the photographer were trying to make certain representations about the product, that might be a different issue -- for instance a photo in an Adidas ad portraying the guy in the Adidas shorts knocking out the guy in the Nike shorts. Sure, that has "lawsuit" written all over it.</p>

<p>Another issue to ponder: Adidas and Nike are trademarked company names. Are these companies going to sue either one of us for using them here in print? No! It is our right to mention these companies by name in casual discussion. Freedom of speech is very important in this country (US), even in the wake of 9-11, and fair use principles (either copyright or trademark) are very important for protecting it.</p>

[sprouty]

<p>Sarah, issue of "use" I was referring to had to do with some forms of commercial use. </p>

[philipward]

<p>Zach,I was shooting at the Canadin National Exhibition in Toronto last year.The largest fair in North America,thosands with cameras and a mecca for street shooters, when an operator of one of the midway booths chased after me.He put his arm around my shoulder and asked me why I was taking photos of his employees and who did I work for.I told him it was an art/hobby project.He the proceeded to lecture me about the "privacy act".I told him I was well aware of my rights to photograph and he was not.He was still holding onto me and I told him to back off. He then said he would jam my camera up my you know where if he caught me taking any more photos.I went to the head of secuirity(A big burly Ex Cop) and explained the situation.He explained to the booth operator in know uncertain terms that he had no expectation of privacy in a public area.It was then up to me to decide if I would press charges for assualt. I declind since I was satisfied with the outcome.The secuirity chief told him he was lucky I did not press charges as it would have cost him hours of court time and many thousands in lawyers fees to defend himself.Its good to stand up for your rights in a firm and calm manner and if sombody gets physical they are the ones in trouble.Normally if sombody asks me in a polite manner to not take their photo I have no problem with it.In large cities their are lots of people working illigally . You should be sensitive to this when you raise your camera when some people become quite aggitated.In some areas NYC you can almost cause a stampede.This all being said these incidents are quite rare.So brush it off and keep shooting.</p>

[michael s.]

<p>Prior thread on Canadian law:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00QMy6</p>

<p>Earlier thread in which a particular -- and particularly <strong>troubling</strong> -- provision of Quebec law and a case decided under the Quebec Charter were also discussed. [Just for reference -- I realize you asked about B.C.]</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00Knab</p>

<p>Speaking generally, Jeff wrote: << ... <em>Laws vary by country, and this can be significant.</em> ... >></p>

<p>You can say that again :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[fullmetalphotograper]

<p>Sarah, one other thing here to be pointed out. In the USA this would not be a 1st Amendment issue. The 1st amendment protects citizens from the government or agents of the government not from private citizens. It is impossible for a private citizen to violate your 1st Amendment rights.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Freedom of speech is very important in this country (US), even in the wake of 9-11, and fair use principles (either copyright or trademark) are very important for protecting it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair use has nothing to do with freedom of speech.</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Zach, you cooperated with the woman too much. You let her control you. You gave her your name and number...that was foolish. I would have told her to shut up, and stromed off.<br>

Don't let others drive you.</p>

[sprouty]

<p>And I would suggest that allowing another person to push your buttons is the weaker option. There is absolutely nothing wrong with not acting like an ass just because someone else is.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>Agree with Sp; no need to act like a jerk.</p>

[michael s.]

<p>Jeff wrote<em>: << ... </em> <em>Fair use has nothing to do with freedom of speech. ... >></em></p>

<p>I disagree. </p>

<p>While it is correct to say that the First Amendment is a limitation on <strong>government</strong> action, not private action (as Ralph noted above), I believe that fair use issues are intimately connected to freedom of speech.</p>

<p>This is a subject of considerable concern and discussion, so if it should turn out that I'm wrong ... well, at least I won't be alone. :-)</p>

<p>Here, on the website of the ACLU of Northern California, is a short piece entitled "<em>Fair Use Drives Free Speech and the Economy</em> ."</p>

<p>http://www.aclunc.org/issues/technology/blog/fair_use_drives_free_speech_and_the_economy.shtml</p>

<p>Here is a link to a short doc film entitled "<em>Fair Use and Free Speech</em> ," in which filmmakers, law professors, and others discuss the relationship between the issues. The occasion for their discussion was the release of a new publication for filmmakers.</p>

<p>http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/videos/fair_use_and_free_speech/</p>

<p>And here at Stanford Law School's Center for Internet and Society is a blog entry by someone who teaches law at Stanford, praising an op ed piece because it emphasizes <em>"that copyright enforcement and the scope of fair use rights also have profound free speech implications."</em></p>

<p>http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/5537</p>

<p>For a much longer and heavily footnoted piece -- a piece I've only glanced at, by the way -- here is one produced by the NYU School of Law Brennan Center for Justice. The title is <em>"Will Fair Use Survive: Free Expression in the Age of Copyright Control."</em></p>

<p>http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/WillFairUseSurvive.pdf</p>

<p>And I could go on and on, but this isn't the place.</p>

<p>When I think of "freedom of speech," I'm thinking not only of a constitutional provision, or a series of court cases, but also of a treasured American -- but not exclusively American -- <strong>value</strong> . Because of my own education and experience, I've had to be aware of what the First Amendment does and does not do. But that's not where my concern stops.</p>

<p> </p>