Photography Laws in Canada

[PASM]

I'm wondering if the absence of laws which forbid photography equals a right to make photography.

What I mean is a person (without touching you or interacting verbally with you) could block your field of view to prevent the pictures you desire being possible to achieve.

 

[Josh66]

Only one way to find out... Sue the SOB and see what the judge says.

I can probably sue TPF and Anheuser-Busch since they are both preventing me from taking pictures right now.

 

[PASM]

LOL "only in America!"

 

[KmH]

LOL "only in America!"

Heavens no. I'm sure people are just as sue happy on Planet X.

Why don't you use a more realistic location in your profile?

 

[PASM]

Because I choose to have what I wish. What's it to you?

 

[tirediron]

In Canada, if a piece of art (photo etc.) is commissioned, the copyright belongs to the person or party that commissioned it and not the artist, providing payment was made. Photographers would then need specify in a contract if they wanted to retain the copyright.

This is the way it was explained at a "Photography and the Law" seminar I attended last year, which was hosted by one of BCs top IP lawyers.

One of the main problems with Canadian photography law is that there is almost none of it. Most applications of the law to photography are applications of law which was originally envisioned for something else (Copyright, trespass, security, etc). At the end of the day, you can't beat common sense.

 

[KmH]

Because I choose to have what I wish. What's it to you?

Context.

 

[skieur]

Great information, thanks for posting this.

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think I've read about a major difference between US and Canadian copyright laws.

In the US, by most accounts, the photographer (artist) owns the copyright to any image they create. The rights can be sold or contracted to the artist's employer (staff photographer etc.).

In Canada, if a piece of art (photo etc.) is commissioned, the copyright belongs to the person or party that commissioned it and not the artist, providing payment was made. Photographers would then need specify in a contract if they wanted to retain the copyright.


I've heard some conflicting information on this...so I'm not sure what is correct.

That is in reference to commissioning a portrait. In general in both Canada and the United States, if you take a photo while working at a job, who owns the rights to the photo depends on the nature of the job and what is in or not in any employment contracts. In simple terms if you are hired by a company as a public relations photographer, then they own the rights to your photos. On the other hand, if you are a travelling salesman on company time, when you take a great news photo, then YOU own the rights to that photo.

skieur

 

[vfotog]

Great information, thanks for posting this.

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think I've read about a major difference between US and Canadian copyright laws.

In the US, by most accounts, the photographer (artist) owns the copyright to any image they create. The rights can be sold or contracted to the artist's employer (staff photographer etc.).

In Canada, if a piece of art (photo etc.) is commissioned, the copyright belongs to the person or party that commissioned it and not the artist, providing payment was made. Photographers would then need specify in a contract if they wanted to retain the copyright.


I've heard some conflicting information on this...so I'm not sure what is correct.

That is in reference to commissioning a portrait. In general in both Canada and the United States, if you take a photo while working at a job, who owns the rights to the photo depends on the nature of the job and what is in or not in any employment contracts. In simple terms if you are hired by a company as a public relations photographer, then they own the rights to your photos. On the other hand, if you are a travelling salesman on company time, when you take a great news photo, then YOU own the rights to that photo.

skieur

the "commissioning a portrait" thing is a huge difference from American law. In the US, if someone hires you for a wedding or a headshot, it's not considered the same thing as "work for hire." The photographer still owns the copyright unless they sign away their rights. In Canada, it doesn't have to be a corporation or a business that you are actually employed by for you to be commissioned and lose your rights. In Canada, if I hire you to shoot my portrait or wedding, once I pay, I own the copyright. CAPIC has fought for the copyrights for photographers to be expanded to be more in line with other creatives, but haven't been successful.

CAPIC - The Canadian Association of Professional Image Creators, Canadian Photographers, Canadian Illustrators, Photographers, Illustrators, Photography, Illustration

 

[SpeedTrap]

One of the best places you can start to look for information on this subject is to contact your local PPOC office (Professional Photographers of Canada)
They are currently working with several groups on copyright reform in Canada.

Big Mike was correct with his statement "In Canada, if a piece of art (photo etc.) is commissioned, the copyright belongs to the person or party that commissioned it and not the artist, providing payment was made. Photographers would then need specify in a contract if they wanted to retain the copyright."

 

[skieur]

One of the best places you can start to look for information on this subject is to contact your local PPOC office (Professional Photographers of Canada)
They are currently working with several groups on copyright reform in Canada.

Big Mike was correct with his statement "In Canada, if a piece of art (photo etc.) is commissioned, the copyright belongs to the person or party that commissioned it and not the artist, providing payment was made. Photographers would then need specify in a contract if they wanted to retain the copyright."

Other than a portrait, I doubt that is the case. One can buy an artistic photo. I doubt that one can commission one. Other than that, it becomes employment.

skieur.

 

[imagemaker46]

I've been working as a professional photographer in Canada for over 35 years and have always followed these simple rules, if it is a public place you can shoot it, if you are on private property you will run into problems unless you have permission, however if you are standing on public property and shooting into private property and it is in public view, it is public. If you are at a concert and working as a professional the bands usually allow the first few songs and then no more photos, however, if it doesn't say anything about no photography on the tickets, then as a spectator you can shoot all you want, they haven't stated that you can't. I have run into this as a professional, limited to 3 songs, but the person standing behind me in the crowd using the same gear can shoot all they want. If you have been accredited to cover an event, you must follow the rules stated on the accreditation.

The most important thing when shooting anything or anyone in public, be respectful of the situation, if someone says no, then respect that, and next time use a longer lens.

 

[skieur]

I've been working as a professional photographer in Canada for over 35 years and have always followed these simple rules, if it is a public place you can shoot it, if you are on private property you will run into problems unless you have permission, however if you are standing on public property and shooting into private property and it is in public view, it is public. If you are at a concert and working as a professional the bands usually allow the first few songs and then no more photos, however, if it doesn't say anything about no photography on the tickets, then as a spectator you can shoot all you want, they haven't stated that you can't. I have run into this as a professional, limited to 3 songs, but the person standing behind me in the crowd using the same gear can shoot all they want. If you have been accredited to cover an event, you must follow the rules stated on the accreditation.

The most important thing when shooting anything or anyone in public, be respectful of the situation, if someone says no, then respect that, and next time use a longer lens.

I have been at it, longer than you have. If you are on private property, it depends on a lot of factors. If there are signs, then you are trespassing when you take a photo. However, you still own all the rights to the photo. If there are no signs, then you can take as many photos as you want and retain all rights to those photos, until you are told to stop by a representative of the owner/security. The only recourse for the property owner is to charge you with trespassing but the normal situation is that you are told to leave and/or escorted off the property. By the way any sign that all "commercial" photos taken on the property belong to the property owner have not stood the test in court. A major Canadian ruling in Ontario went in favour of the photographer NOT the property owner.

skieur

 

[Roden]

I'm wondering if the absence of laws which forbid photography equals a right to make photography.

What I mean is a person (without touching you or interacting verbally with you) could block your field of view to prevent the pictures you desire being possible to achieve.

No law says you can breathe. I don't think they'd try to stop you.

I think to figure out whether or not it's legal to shoot anyone functioning in a public place just go on youtube and see how many times police ask photographers, or tell photographers to put there camera away or to quit filming them but don't act on it. Pretty clear. If they push it, you would find that, if the camera is confiscated under such circumstances, it is usually returned with an apology some time later (minus the photos of what you were taking). They've breached your right to freedom of expression by doing so... try hand have them charged? Not very likely.

 

[KmH]

FWIW, Canadian copyright laws were recently changed/overhauled, so relying on information in a thread that was started in 2006 may not be a very good idea