girl I captured at the bar

[Big Mike]

I have heard that it's illegal (in Canada) to photograph people in bars...I can't say for sure though.

The bar is a public place so I don't imagine any sort of privacy law applies.

It depends on your idea of a 'public place'. Every bar that I know is owned by somebody (not the government)...so technically it's private property. They owners have the right to set all kinds of 'rules'.

 

[LaFoto]

There WAS nothing wrong with the picture.
And I am sure it wasn't "wrong" to TAKE it.
The question is: can a photo of the kind, which was taken without the person KNOWING her photo was taken (and she did not look like she had noticed someone took her photo) be openly shown on an internet site/forum? That is a question which is answered by rules in my country and must otherwise be answered by the person who puts up the photo and their own ethics. That is my point of view. And all I said (which started the discussion and EnterUserName's taking out his pic) was that it'd be against my ethics to display the picture. That's all.

 

[Michaelaw]

Distracting from the thread topic for a sec. Does anybody know the laws in Canada re taking pictures in public places like the streets of large Canadian cities that clearly show peoples faces. Are these type of images OK to post on the web with no release form. Or does anyone know where I might find this info?
Thanks.

 

[GrfxGuru]

My comments are based on my personal opinions nothing more than that, but this thread does raise the on going personal choices of what should and should not be publicly displayed. In a different situation for example this picture would of been just fine. Lets say I take a photo of a street scene and people just happen to be in the shot, does that give me the right to put it in a public forum? I would have to ask myself the question of whether I think the people in the photo or other people may take issue with it. And then that makes me think of another situation, what if a photo shows no identifying information, let's say it's a silloutte(spelling) or the person is turned away from the camera not showing facial detail.

Intersting questions and discussions I think. Having spent some time as a photographer for a paper this was always a difficult area for me.

Regards,
Peter Witham

 

[LaFoto]

Well, I have a number of quite interesting photos of people in my archives that I have never displayed here and will never display on any internet site just because I haven't got release. Now I am not taking photos for any paper --- here in the country everyone knows all the photogs for the different local papers around, so when you are out somewhere and you see one of THOSE taking pics, you just about silently agree to be finding yourself in the paper one of the next days to come.

And I have displayed the photo I once took of the mayor of the district town: he is a "person of public interest" and his rights are therefore somewhat limited.

And I did put up street photos I took in New York ... of people that are all unknown to me. I just felt like showing on here that I had ventured into that field for just once.

And - like I have said before - there are some clear rules and regulations about photos of people (even in public). While you make TAKE them as you like to, you must not necessarily show them, least of to a general public (and there cannot be a more general public anywhere but in the internet!). So our laws are my guidelines ... I have grown up with them and I am sure they have also formed my own ethics. If I had grown up in the States where the laws are considerably more lenient, I might as well be thinking otherwise.

It is a difficult area.
When do you have "silent release"?
When don't you have any?
When do you best ask for signed release?

I KNOW this is a vast field for discussion.

 

[neea]

I've tried to find info on this topic but all I can find is model/property releases for stock photo companies.
From what I understand if you are going to make any profit from your picture you need the subjects (any recognizable faces) to give you written permission. Same with any recognizable private property.

As for 'editorial' purposes... I have no idea (perhaps someone could shed light on this).

Personally, I would not display any picture unless I had that persons permission (I know I'd want to know if there were random pictures of me walking down the street somewhere on the net... and I'd probably request to have them removed also)

Regarding pictures of recognizable property.. I recently submitted pictures to be printed on the cover of the local phonebook. We have a fire training school and I submitted nearly 100 pictures of the training grounds. I've already been informed that if one of those pictures is chosen I will need permission to use their 'likeness' (as the girl put it).

It'd be much easier if there were a set of guidelines about all this... I will continue my search.

EDIT: I just come across this. It's from a legal standpoint and it's American.
It says here you can take pictures of law enforcement officers. I definatley know from personal experience that this is not true in Canada. (although I've managed to sneak a few for personal use but SHHHH)

 

[KenCo]

I have heard that it's illegal (in Canada) to photograph people in bars...I can't say for sure though.
It depends on your idea of a 'public place'. Every bar that I know is owned by somebody (not the government)...so technically it's private property. They owners have the right to set all kinds of 'rules'.

But that in itself is a contradiction......Rule in Canada: No Photography in bars.....Bars are privately owned and as such owners make all kinds of rules? .......including the right to photograph? What about special occasions such as receptions from weddings etc.....
Bars and clubs in the UK used to be better know as "Public Houses"

I know you are discussing the laws from outside the UK BUT as an ex licensee bars here are not all privately owned.......and a lot of nightclubs have started having a photographer on the premises just taking shots in the hope people will buy them from vending machines in the club! You can use the machine and flick through to see if your shot had been taken....then insert coins and it will print your pic out......I suppose you would be able to print any picture taken that night.....even if it wasn't yours!?

The question is: can a photo of the kind, which was taken without the person KNOWING her photo was taken (and she did not look like she had noticed someone took her photo) be openly shown on an internet site/forum? That is a question which is answered by rules in my country and must otherwise be answered by the person who puts up the photo and their own ethics. That is my point of view. And all I said (which started the discussion and EnterUserName's taking out his pic) was that it'd be against my ethics to display the picture. That's all.

I suppose the same can be said for most sports pictures and alike!

Not my argument and I certainly wouldn't be pointing a camera at someone in a club but at the same time there are many who do a lot of candid photography and do it well.....yet still post there pics on forums without consent.
EDIT:
OOPS! forgot to mention.....if that's the law in Canada and this photographer is from Canada then there's know argument really.
Shouldn't of even had a camera in the bar!

 

[GrfxGuru]

@KenCo

Interesting about the clubs and photographers, that certainly does 'muddy the water' as you say whats to stop me getting a photo of someone else...that almost sounds like one of those things that turn up later in news headlines...girl's/boy's photo was seen in club by the acused...ouch, didn't want to go there but that's a thought. Not that it's really relevant to this discussion but something that crossed my mind many times in the past.

In general I think most people with cameras are very 'self ethical' about these things. I know that growing up in the UK I was used to knowing that I couldn't go anywhere without a camera seeing me, albeit one on a tower or building rather than someone's hand, and I never really stopped to think where those images might end up.

 

[EnterUserName]

But that in itself is a contradiction......Rule in Canada: No Photography in bars.....Bars are privately owned and as such owners make all kinds of rules? .......including the right to photograph? What about special occasions such as receptions from weddings etc.....
Bars and clubs in the UK used to be better know as "Public Houses"

I know you are discussing the laws from outside the UK BUT as an ex licensee bars here are not all privately owned.......and a lot of nightclubs have started having a photographer on the premises just taking shots in the hope people will buy them from vending machines in the club! You can use the machine and flick through to see if your shot had been taken....then insert coins and it will print your pic out......I suppose you would be able to print any picture taken that night.....even if it wasn't yours!?

I suppose the same can be said for most sports pictures and alike!

Not my argument and I certainly wouldn't be pointing a camera at someone in a club but at the same time there are many who do a lot of candid photography and do it well.....yet still post there pics on forums without consent.
EDIT:
OOPS! forgot to mention.....if that's the law in Canada and this photographer is from Canada then there's know argument really.
Shouldn't of even had a camera in the bar!

Nope from Albuquerque NM , USA :heart:

 

[Michaelaw]

I've tried to find info on this topic but all I can find is model/property releases for stock photo companies.
From what I understand if you are going to make any profit from your picture you need the subjects (any recognizable faces) to give you written permission. Same with any recognizable private property.

As for 'editorial' purposes... I have no idea (perhaps someone could shed light on this).

Personally, I would not display any picture unless I had that persons permission (I know I'd want to know if there were random pictures of me walking down the street somewhere on the net... and I'd probably request to have them removed also)

Regarding pictures of recognizable property.. I recently submitted pictures to be printed on the cover of the local phonebook. We have a fire training school and I submitted nearly 100 pictures of the training grounds. I've already been informed that if one of those pictures is chosen I will need permission to use their 'likeness' (as the girl put it).

It'd be much easier if there were a set of guidelines about all this... I will continue my search.

EDIT: I just come across this. It's from a legal standpoint and it's American.
It says here you can take pictures of law enforcement officers. I definatley know from personal experience that this is not true in Canada. (although I've managed to sneak a few for personal use but SHHHH)

I've read many different versions re shooting (with camera) the police in Canada. At the end of the day, If they're wearing red suits and sitting on horses they're fair game.
I don't give a hoot who takes my picture nor where they display it personally I find it sad that people get their knickers in a knot about having their picture taken in public.

Here's a semi informative link

Link

 

[Renair]

I think alot of this stuff is BS. People dont want their picture taken that intudes possible on 2 seconds of their time, yet they are more then happy to accept at any given time in any day in a city, they are being watched and videoed on CCTV and security cameras all day long as they go about their business. I recently was in the IFSC, Irish Financial Services Centre here in Dublin, I took a shot of a sculpture of a bear. A security guard came along and said I cant photograph it without permission. I said fine, then I do not give you permission to record me on your CCTV all around this public area! I will delete the picture if you delete your video! Wasnt being a smart arse on purpose, but I showed him the pic, a close up of the bear, no buildings or anything in the back. He just smiled and said "Fair enough, you got me there......" and then walked off.

 

[Michaelaw]

That's a great comeback LOL :thumbup:

 

[LaFoto]

When clubs have "official" photographers who go round and take photos to sell them via vending machine later, then there IS a silent agreement already there between bar-photographer-customer that their photo may well be/most probably will be taken and sold. In every bar customer's KNOWING there is a photographer about - or a press person, for that matter - they (silently) agree to having their photo taken and shown.

You don't know HOW MANY silent contracts you "sign" actually.

There is the "Youth Page" in one of our local papers that shows every Wednesday. And the paper has a photographer designed to specifically go to any bar/disco/festivity in the area and take photos. They will then be shown in that paper on that page on Wednesdays. All photos of broadly smiling youths, cheering into the camera for a photo taken with on-camera flash. 20 or more every Wednesday. I am sure those youths are even quite KEEN on having their photo shown in the paper. And in that photographer's saying "Hey, I'm from the so-and-so paper and want to take your photo", unless they say "No. Not me, please" they have agreed - not only to having their photo taken but also published.

I feel there is a difference between that and a private person singling out a girl in a bar that he finds pretty, taking her photo candidly, and showing it on the internet.

And our (admittedly fairly strict) German rules also say that as soon as a photo shows a group of more than 8 faces (spectators at a sport's event), or as soon as a photo clearly is a photo of a landscape/building/sight/whatever and the person happens to be part of the picture, it is ok. That person may even be recognisable. But the photo's subject clearly was something else.

Come to think of it, when I posted my "Summer-In-The-City"-pics, I did post photos of persons that I don't know at all. So please don't think I want to be "more Catholic than the Pope" ...

 

[neea]

I think alot of this stuff is BS. People dont want their picture taken that intudes possible on 2 seconds of their time, yet they are more then happy to accept at any given time in any day in a city, they are being watched and videoed on CCTV and security cameras all day long as they go about their business. I recently was in the IFSC, Irish Financial Services Centre here in Dublin, I took a shot of a sculpture of a bear. A security guard came along and said I cant photograph it without permission. I said fine, then I do not give you permission to record me on your CCTV all around this public area! I will delete the picture if you delete your video! Wasnt being a smart arse on purpose, but I showed him the pic, a close up of the bear, no buildings or anything in the back. He just smiled and said "Fair enough, you got me there......" and then walked off.

I think what it comes down to is LOCAL laws.
I only know that in Canada if you are being recorded on security video there must be a sign posted saying that there are cameras on the property.

I only said that I would request a picture of myself to be removed because I feel that it's my responsibility to always get permission and would hope that others would feel the same obligation. It's just respect.

 

[LaFoto]

This thread needs to be moved to the Photographic Discussions now since it has become just that and no longer even shows the photo in question.

(And EnterUserName: the discussion has long left the one photo that you posted, please don't feel offended by it in any way. It IS a difficult field and wants to be discussed over and again, I'm afraid).