Topic: One more reason why street photography in Quebec is a pain

[Francois]

Now, this is a bit of my eternal rant it seems.
Laws in Quebec almost explicitly say that street photography... and people photography to a large extent are a big no-no.
And people know that they can take advantage of it... that's even worse.
I read yesterday an article about Google being sued by a lady because she claims that on streetview, you could see a bit of her cleavage...
http://petapixel.com/2014/10/30/google-ordered-pay-woman-capturing-cleavage-street-view-cameras

Now, when you look at the resolution of Streetview, you quickly realize that there isn't much to see... but she still brought the giant to court and won.

I'm bringing this here mainly for the new members who are not aware of how bad we have it in the province. It's pretty hard to make good pictures where everyone's back is exposed to the camera... and to say it simply, it sucks out a lot of the joy out of photography.

[Indofunk]

Wow. And I was just boasting to limr and 02pilot last night about how my favorite part of street photography is when people look at me and start yelling at me about how they don't want their picture taken, or even better that I *can't* take their picture, and meanwhile I say oh yes I can and hey whaddya know I just did!

That sucks about Quebec though. I was semi-planning a trip to Montreal, maybe this changes things 

[Ezzie]

Not unlike the law here in Norway. If the person is substantial to the picture, and can easily be identified, you have to have the subject's consent to publish in any which way. So you may take the picture, but can't use it. Exceptions can be made if the subject is participating in a public gathering or demonstration et al.

For the conscious photographer this is death to street photography. Though most who post on Facebook, Instagram and so on, would seem to be oblivious of the fact they are braking the law for every second picture they share.

[Francois]

Wow. And I was just boasting to limr and 02pilot last night about how my favorite part of street photography is when people look at me and start yelling at me about how they don't want their picture taken, or even better that I *can't* take their picture, and meanwhile I say oh yes I can and hey whaddya know I just did!

That sucks about Quebec though. I was semi-planning a trip to Montreal, maybe this changes things 

Well, you're still welcome to come. It's just that you can't show all your pictures in places where you know there's a potential for that person to see the picture.
It's a bit like a cat and mouse game. What they don't know can't hurt them... thus they can't hurt you.

But at least we're not France, the place where even your car's image belongs to you...

There are workarounds like having people seen from the back, have some type of object hide the face, people in a large organized crowd like a protest or a parade, famous people and finding a way to make people not care... Oh yeah, you also get some dirty looks from passers by when you have a camera around your neck.

And the funny thing is that all this crazy law goes away as soon as you cross the bridge to go to Ontario. That's why Tintin never has problems with his street photography.

[Dave Elden]

thx for posting but really the issue here is the behaviour of the plaintiff's co-workers who "mocked" - read harrassed - her about the Google street view capture. If you go to the Journal article and look at the first comment you will see a fitting description of them that even non Francophones won't need to translate  .

Now, to redress the balance and demonstrate why it is socially & culturally undesirable to pass the sort of laws that attempt to restrict photography that seem to appeal to the Quebec legislators you might want to look at some of Gabor Szilasi's work here:

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/canadas-la-belle-province/

Dave - over the bridge  .

[Francois]

And things get worse.
If somebody is driving a car you need their consent because they are inside. But if they stick their head out the window to shout at traffic, they've entered public space and it's OK to photograph... but that is until they sue for making them look bad!

[Late Developer]

On the way home from work earlier this week, I read an article about that woman and her court case and concluded that the Canadian judiciary is, in my opinion, more to blame for taking any notice of her than she is for making such fatuous complaints in the first place.  It is utterly beyond belief, to me, that anyone would give such a complaint a nano-second's attention.  The world (in this particular case) would appear to have gone stark, raving bonkers.  It would appear from earlier comments that the French are worse still.

[Francois]

Yes, they are... but our laws in Quebec are modeled after the French.
Just look at the nice portfolio from Gabor Szilasi that Dave posted.
Two of the three pictures posted would be unusable today.

Now I'm wondering if anybody has any idea how I could work around this mess?
I'm a bit tired of being stuck in a rut...

[02Pilot]

Yes, they are... but our laws in Quebec are modeled after the French.
Just look at the nice portfolio from Gabor Szilasi that Dave posted.
Two of the three pictures posted would be unusable today.

Now I'm wondering if anybody has any idea how I could work around this mess?
I'm a bit tired of being stuck in a rut...

How about a protest series? Shoot a bunch of photos with people in them, then put black bars over all the faces to obscure the identities in a very unsubtle way.

[Indofunk]

Yes, they are... but our laws in Quebec are modeled after the French.
Just look at the nice portfolio from Gabor Szilasi that Dave posted.
Two of the three pictures posted would be unusable today.

Now I'm wondering if anybody has any idea how I could work around this mess?
I'm a bit tired of being stuck in a rut...

How about a protest series? Shoot a bunch of photos with people in them, then put black bars over all the faces to obscure the identities in a very unsubtle way.

I'm liking this idea.

[Late Developer]

More long term, vote out any party that has pro-French leanings.  We have our problems with half-baked, sound-bite spewing politicians and a bunch of doddering old farts masquerading as judges in the UK but if that's the influence France has on Canada, I'm delighted the UK hasn't gone down the same route, via some farcical European Court of Human Rights ruling.

Seriously, I just can't understand it.  If you're in the open, viewable from a public place, I don't see why there should be any expectation of privacy (whether you're a millionaire or a pauper). If you're bothered about people (any people) staring down your blouse or any other garment for that matter, why not wear something a bit more "modest"?

And, no, I'm not suggesting we should all start dressing and behaving like the Amish or Quakers......

[mcduff]

How people can post billions of selfies a day and yet have an intense reaction to others taking pics they may be in is a case of 'cognitive dissonance' my fave psych 101 term ;-)

[Peter84]

Well the law in the Netherlands state that you may take any picture you like as long as you are in a public domain. What you do with the photo's is a whole other ball game. If shooting for some one (person or company) you must have a concent from every person in the picture if you shoot for yourself you may publish it online etc with no restrictions, unless the photo may harm the person that is on it. So summarising here you may shoot any thing you like in as long as it is in public domain, it what you do with it that counts. Had a discussion with a gent once who thought he knew better who was on a picture I just took. Gave him a card and told him to "sue me", never got served 

[Photo_Utopia]

I saw this and thought it was actually quite sad. She originally wanted $45k so what they settled for is only a small amount.
After reading the story I googled her and found plenty of images of her on facebook, I guess pictures of yourself posted drinking and having fun in clubs are considered OK but if anyone else takes them?

[Francois]

That's pretty much the sad state of affairs around here.
If you want to know how this mess started, just google "pascale claude aubry" You'll be pretty surprised to see how far she pushed this thing...

[Indofunk]

Had a discussion with a gent once who thought he knew better who was on a picture I just took. Gave him a card and told him to "sue me", never got served 

Well done I want to try that sometime

[tkmedia]

Had a discussion with a gent once who thought he knew better who was on a picture I just took. Gave him a card and told him to "sue me", never got served 

Well done I want to try that sometime

I can see you handing out cards with printing that says "Sosumi". Old tyme apple mac users already know that spelling.

[Francois]

Maybe I should hand out cards with my neighbor's name on it 

[SLVR]

Never would have thought this in Quebec. Keep in mind though that even though in Ontario the laws are in favour of the public domain, there are still people here who don't want their picture taken.

I've seen discussions on flickr within Toronto where people post saying that it disrespects their culture. They didn't disclose what the exact culture was however. I think this just brings up the respect and ethics that everyone shooting street should already have. If the photographer is respectful and abiding by the law and someone has a problem with it I think sosumi applies just the same.

I do however like my street shots to have that anonymous aspect to it. I think that if it doesn't detract from the image then its a neat aesthetic.

[Indofunk]

I like silhouetted streetshots as well, but the subject of the photo still (may) see you taking the picture and get annoyed. Although in cases like that, I just say "you were silhouetted, you'll never be able to see your face" and even though they don't understand or believe that, it confuses them for just long enough for me to make a getaway

[Bryan]

Though it makes street photography more difficult you could look at it as more of a challenge to get a shot without showing faces.  How does this affect the press, do they need to get permission from everyone in their photos? 

[Terry]

My solution is to shoot with a TLR.  Nobody (but nobody) thinks it's a camera.

[Francois]

How does this affect the press, do they need to get permission from everyone in their photos?

Well... they're the ones stuck with the can of worms right now.
If it's a picture of a crowd, it's OK.
If it's a protest, it's OK.
If it's a parade, it's OK.
If it's somebody who's in the public eye, it's OK.
If you're interviewing someone, it's OK since it is expected that they consent to publishing.
If it's a complete stranger, it's bad.
If you isolate someone in a crowd, it's bad.
If there is a group with one person who's style is different, it's bad.
If it contains kids, it's double bad.
If the person is inside, it's bad.

I remember a few years ago the paper needed pictures of a classroom for a special doc they were working on. They rented a school room, hired 30 kids who also work in the movie industry, hired a model to act as the teacher, crammed everyone in the classroom, took the shot. Something that should have taked a few minutes in real life ended up taking a whole week.

So far I end up taking pictures of dogs... but that gets a bit boring with time.

Here are a few definite no-no's that I've made safe with cheesy black rectangles.
They were taken at an art opening and I'm not sure they are OK to be published since I don't know exactly who's on them, it was inside, the people are isolated, I have no model release... and the flash sync was really off...

[Indofunk]

Here are a few definite no-no's that I've made safe with cheesy black rectangles.
They were taken at an art opening and I'm not sure they are OK to be published since I don't know exactly who's on them, it was inside, the people are isolated, I have no model release... and the flash sync was really off...

Ugh. That makes me want to take 02's idea to the next level and blacken out the entire faces and in their place draw cheesy MS Paint smiley faces on them 

[Indofunk]

Or Batman masks! Or "deal with it" sunglasses! The possibilities are endless! 

[Francois]

I don't know if you remember the TV series "The Dudesons" where they actually grafted emoticons on people's heads?

[SLVR]

If it contains kids, it's double bad.

I laughed.

[soeren]

And things get worse.
If somebody is driving a car you need their consent because they are inside. But if they stick their head out the window to shout at traffic, they've entered public space and it's OK to photograph... but that is until they sue for making them look bad!

No sir I didn't make you look bad you did that your self I just documented it

[soeren]

As a protest you could make livesize copies of the faces of the ones responsible  for the laws an stick those to the heads of you subjects

[Francois]

I don't think the supreme court judges would be happy about that 

[soeren]

I don't think the supreme court judges would be happy about that 

Why not? its pictures of pictures and as politicians they are of interest and thus "fair game" photowise.
Best regards

[hookstrapped]

I think there are legitimate objections to taking a fleeting image of a person out of context that makes the person look foolish or evil or degraded. That's why I hate the whole subgenre of homeless street photography.  The interview linked below touches on these issues

http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=7448.0

[Indofunk]

I think candid street photography is very different from "misery porn". With street photography, you're capturing a slice of time in a public space. Sure, in that exact moment I might have been picking my nose, and when you review that photo at home you may think that it detracts from the photo and end up using another one. Or you may decide that it makes no difference to the photo and publish it. So then I see the photo and I hate the fact that *I* happen to look bad. That's ego.

I don't really know where I'm going with this, so I'm going to stop now, except to say that I had a very satisfying shouting match with a Bangladeshi candy stand owner who did not like the fact that I was taking a picture of his candy stand (in which he happened to be standing) on a public street. He threatened to call the police, which of course I didn't care about, but I considered asking him if he'd be willing to actually go to court, which may involve digging up his papers, work permit, etc...

[gsgary]

I think we should send Bruce Gilden to Quebec

[gsgary]

Just googled, Bruce is in trouble https://www.magnumphotos.com/Catalogue/Bruce-Gilden/1977/CANADA-Quebec-City-Gypsy-Nuns-NN12076.html

[hookstrapped]

Maybe the candy stand owner's legal status is why he was sensitive to having his pic taken

[Indofunk]

Maybe the candy stand owner's legal status is why he was sensitive to having his pic taken

No doubt. But the same argument applies. If you don't want to have your picture taken, you should not be in public. He's taking the same "risk" simply being in public as he is by having me take his picture. I don't see the difference. In fact, he's MORE at risk in public because a cop can handcuff him. A cop can't handcuff a photograph.

[Francois]

Just googled, Bruce is in trouble https://www.magnumphotos.com/Catalogue/Bruce-Gilden/1977/CANADA-Quebec-City-Gypsy-Nuns-NN12076.html

Yeah, especially with Tom Jones in the background

But joking aside, it would be probably good if all the newspapers, TV stations and big press agencies banded together to overturn this nonsense.
But having Bruce Gilden over here with his flash would definitely stir things up!

Though I wonder if the flash wouldn't have the effect of freezing people up in a way that they don't know what hit them and just don't realize that they've been photographed?
A bit like the effect that flash bombs used by SWAT teams make the people in a room freeze just long enough for them to enter...

[sgt.brimer]

Last year I was in San Francisco. I made sure to spend time in the Chinatown area. I happened to see three gentlemen playing traditional music on a street corner. I listened to the music for a bit,  then I pointed to my camera and then pointed back to the musicians. They understood that I wanted to take their photo and agreed to it. I also put a few dollars in a hat for them.
Now we can't always ask for permission to take a photo, nor do we always want to. Otherwise everything looks staged and boring. I've often heard that when it comes to street photography, if you don't have a good vibe before you press the shutter button, then maybe you shouldn't take the photo. But then again, no one would be fearless and get some great pictures. Seems like damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[szabolcs.agai]

IMHO people those are shouting at us always have a good reason not to be on a photo at that time and this makes them to be felt offended.
Otherwise they mostly laugh or go by

[Verian]

I've never had a single person actually complain when I am taking photos on the street. I've had some jump in front of the camera because it's hilarious, though they probably don't realise that I see that as a bonus! I've asked people to let me take their picture and as many politely decline as those that agree. Some of it is down to method I guess, more often than not I don't have the camera anywhere near my face, or if I do I pan, pause for 1 second to take the shot and then continue to pan so it's not that noticeable. I will already have focused on the point where I plan to fire the shutter. Sometimes I will agree to take a leaflet if I can take a picture, or buy a big issue, often the subject is to the right or left of the frame so the camera isn't pointing directly at anybody.

The rules on it here are more relaxed of course.

[Bryan]

I don't do much in the way of street photography but these ladies in American Samoa didn't seem to mind when I took their picture at the Pago Pago market.

Pago Pago market by bac1967, on Flickr

[Indofunk]

I've had many more people give me the stinkeye or complain to me when they're in my frame than people happy to be there or (in only one case in my photog life so far) jump into the frame. None of them realize that I don't give a s**t whether they're in frame or not, and in most cases I'm just as pissed off that they wandered in as they are