Your Rights as a Photographer in Toronto

I always wonder about whether or not I can take pictures of people.  I love taking pictures of people, but am always worried that I'm going to piss someone off.  I haven't found a way around that one. 

 I know a heck of a lot of people who take pictures of people and don't care, and I have certainly caught people trying to be subtle while taking my picture, and it has never bothered me. 

 Maybe I should just take the pictures and see what happens...

Megan, good point, I didn't really touch on that. I've never been big on photographing people, mostly because of the reason you mentioned.

I'd say though that it's perfectly legal, provided the person is out in public, and that you're not stalking them around the city trying to get the money shot, so to speak. I imagine if the person objects to being photographed though, and you continue to do so, that it could border on harassment.

megan: in canada, it's completely legal to take someone's photograph in a public place, without permission, EXCEPT in quebec. privacy laws there prohibit photography of identifiable individuals without their consent...and some media outlets have been successfully sued over it. that doesn't mean it's not a murky issue, though... check out a discussion here if you're interested -- http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009s0V

Tyler's overview is excellent and in my opinion as another non-lawyer reasonably accurate. Your summary on the other hand glosses over a couple things, if you are interested in this area, do go and read Tyler's original.

 As for taking pictures of people, you have pretty broad charter protection of the right to take just about any picture, the limits come in when you want to do anything with that photo beyond look at it in the privacy of your home and maybe show it to friends and family, anything beyond that you could be breaching the subject's privacy and personality rights, problem is there is very little case law on the topic outside Quebec. The key thing to keep in mind is that the US concept of "someone out in public has no expectation of privacy" does NOT apply here, if I'm out in public not doing anything newsworthy and you take a picture of me and hang it in an art gallery I still have personality rights and I could sue you if I felt these were breached (more likely I'd be flattered, but that's a calculated risk anyone shooting people on the street with the intention of showing the work takes). 

graham: you've made an error

You say:

it's completely legal to take someone's photograph in a public place, without permission, EXCEPT in quebec

  Which is incorrect, a correct statement would be:

It is completely legal to take someone's photograph in a public place, without permission, even in Quebec, however in Quebec there are legal restrictions on what you can do with the picture once you've taken it. 

The reason why this is an important distinction is that it's perfectly acceptable to shoot first and ask for permission to use the photo later. 

The discussion you link to repeatedly says that the law in Canada is similar to in the US which is not correct. In the rest of Canada, as I said above, it's a gray area, Canadian law recognizes certain moral rights that US law does not.

A friend of mine was arrested for taking a photo of a police officer arresting someone in my city (windsor).  He was standing on the sidewalk on public property.  One of the officers came over took the camera from him and formatted the memory card.  Not just that photo but all photos on the card. 

 Then the officer wrote up a false report stating all kinds of lies about my friend and his actions and had his partner sign it.  

My friend wanted to file a complaint but was advised not to by a high ranking officer of Windsor Police.  We were told there was no law broken by what my friend did, but seems unless you have a witness, police can do whatever they want with you.  It was a very frightening situation and lesson learned.  So be careful.  The world is a crazy place after 911.  

 Here in Windsor we had the Ambassador Bridge which connects Windsor to Detroit, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard about police being called for someone taking a photo of the bridge, thinking they're a terrorist.  Makes me so sad.  

Darren, that's really scary. Unless your friend was obstructing justice, I don't think there's anything they could have charged him with. Then again, like you said, it's a crazy world after 911.

That being said, I think it's more important than ever for people to know their rights and defend them when need be.

This is a fantastic prelim to Ambient Light's - Photography Laws. I've always stuck to this one little truth, that I had the right  to keep my photos and am allowed to take street photos.

Reading up on this has given me a much clearer understanding of my rights. I don't have a fancy schmancy SLR or anything so I can only imagine how much more of a hassle you guys get. Thanks again and happy clicking to all. 

The second you step outside into public you're open to be photographed. You don't like that? stay at home.

 I was at a street festival in vienna in october and my friend and I were on a photo mission and he took a photo of a woman with he husband from about three feet away and her husband asked (in german) "Did you just photograph my wife?" he replied "yes". She asked "what are you going to do with the photo?" he mentioned an Austrian pornography magazine at which she just flipped out during her public outrage he continued to photograph the woman making a fool of herself. The series didn't make it any further than his blog (http://severinkoller.blogspot.com/) but the whole situation left me laughing

 With that said, if you come out into the world. Prepare to be photographed. Even if you fall asleep on the subway someone with a quiet rangefinder camera might be watching...waiting...clicking away. and why not? it's fun!

I agree completely 100% with what Ryan said. And why not? The authorities, the government and even private companies have their CCTVs watching us all the time, we should have every right to watch back, and to watch others.

 Darren's comment was especially disturbing and reminded me of the case of that guy named Jamma Jamma or something, up in North York, who was attacked by a Police Officer and filmed. The cop tried to get the camera, but instead it ended up being used as evidence, which is exactly why people should always try and take photos and film police as much as possible. They should have nothing to worry about, unless they're breaching protocol, which given their authority, should be punished heavily.

Re: Tresspassing. 

 It's my understanding that in most circumstances you can't be charged with tresspassing without first being asked to leave (and refusing).  Ie: any sort of private property used as public space (such as a store, mall, plaza where anyone is free to enter).  It is understood in such situations you are welcome on the property  unless told otherwise.

 That being said, if you're taking a photo of a building while on private property, they can ask you to stop photographing and leave.  They can't demand you delete your photos, take your camera or charge you under a tresspassing law.  Now, of course taking more photos after being asked not to would likely fall under tresspassing (as would taking photos despite signs asking you not to).

Who is this other 'Ryan'? lawl.

Anywho, it's my understanding that I can shoot the inside of people's homes if I damn well please, so long as I'm standing on public property (or at least not the building owners' property) and their windows are wide open. If I can see the inside of the house from public property, I  can take its picture while on public property.

This would go into the whole "reasonable expectation of privacy" thing.

If your windows are open and viewable on the street, then there is not reasonable expectation of privacy. In the case of a bathroom, if you're on a porto-potty and you leave the dor open while dropping a deuce, I might not want to take your picture but I damn well can if I wish. If I were to open the door, entirely different story.

m i ryte? 

Ry, yeah I think you're right on there, but it starts to get sticky when the laws make use of words like 'reasonable' and 'expectation'.

This leaves the door wide open for interpretation in court if someone does sue you, but ultimately that's a good thing. I believe most laws are purposely written somewhat ambiguously, so that they don't give either a black or white answer about how to act in a given situation.

This has the effect of allowing common sense to come into the equation, and to prevent people from exploiting laws to their own personal advantage.

great post!

i do a fair amount of street shooting myself and i've been in a few sticky situations recently.  one of them involved me with a tiny XA2 (old school lomo-like P&S film cam) snapping a pic of a street car at yonge & queen. some guy jumped out of the woodwork and told me he'd smash my camera if i had taken a picture of him. i hadn't even noticed him. when i got my pictures back, i didn't find him in any. must have had a bad day.

however, most of the time, i don't get any hassle even though i rarely ask for permission. i take pictures at 'tourist places' and i don't hide what i'm doing. i snap away quickly (usually without even stopping) and i use small cameras. don't spy on people with obnoxious tele lenses -- that's just wrong.

last but not least a word of advice from a fellow street shooter.... 'If you dont want to be photographed, you shouldnt go outside'.
 

i nearly got in serious trouble for taking a photo of the american embassy in budapest. the whole are was barricaded off, which should have given me a clue, but i had no idea what the actual building was. it was also the middle of winter and my face was completely covered, which i only realised -after- dealing with the security guards. if i'd uncovered my face it would have been much easier but i just didn't think..

 my bad ;]

actually, the biggest trouble was i couldn't prove to the security that i'd deleted the photo. they wanted to watch me delete it, but that's the first thing i did when they shouted at me in hungarian.

I had a similar run-in at the TD Plaza, I was shooting my friend (dressed in a grizzly bear costume), we stopped by the steps of the plaza for a break, he was resting againt a planter on plaza property, I was on the the pulic sidewalk fiddlling with my camera. Security asked (yelled at) me to leave, said that i was not allowed to take photos there or of the building. I responded with a calm NO, and that i had a right to photograph anything i wanted on and from pulic property. In response the security guard then told ME, to tell my friend to leave. I told the security guard to tell him himself (he was standing next to my friend!), but he wouldn't!

That went on for a couple minutes until my friend was sufficiently ammused and walked down the steps of his volition. 

Ironically enough, a few minutes later we saw other people on TD Plaza property taking photos and they weren't harrased. i think the security guard has an issue with bears.

A couple years ago I discoverd Bert P Krages attorney at law and his <a href="http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm">photographers rights</a>. It is American, but after a few hours of cross referencing online, it's not much different and equally important to know and carry (wallet sized version available for free download) if you travel to the USA.

I also wanted to mention if you're about to get booted from somewhere you want to be, and are asked to delete your media card comply and recover later. You can ALWAYS get the data back with FREE software available online and in the comfort of your own home.

Pah!  Had I been in your position Adam I would have been pissed off and caused a scene!  Sounds to me like both the security guard and usher were on a power trip.  I mean, it's the TD Tower, you could have walked across the street to another private property, zoomed in and continued taking pictures of it!

That said, I don't agree completely with what Ryan (without a C) said.  Technically he's correct but the photographee has just as much rights as the photographer, and if someone demands to know what is being done with their photograph they are entitled to a straight answer.  Imagine if his friend had been taking pictures of this german fellows young daughter, I'm sure he would have been even less pleased about it... you know, what with perverts and the like (not calling you a perv, obviously!)

Police, however, should be photographed!!  After all, they are technically employees of the public so we have a right to document and observe their work.  Post 9/11 or not, we shouldn't take this kind of BS lying down... or else it's really us who make the post 9/11 world 'a different and scary place'. 

nobody can force you to erase your memory card or hand over your film.

i'm surprised about the hassle around the TD tower. i shoot there all the time, never had any problems. i've also learnt not to argue with people.... the 'school project' response goes a long way, so does acting like a tourist.

I don't get why security is so anal at the TD towers either. It's not as if I can steal corporate secrets through windows with my telephoto lens shooting from the ground.

A fellow photoblogger took a trip with a couple of friends to Hamilton and was photographing along the industrial strip there, from the sidewalk. A woman came out of one of the properties and told them they weren't allowed to photograph the factories/buildings and said she was going to call the police. The photog group moved on and rest of the day passed without incident. The next day the photoblogger was at home in Toronto and there was a knock on the door. Opening it he found two Hamilton policemen who had driven all that way to ask him what he has been doing taking photos of factories. They tracked him down because the woman gave them the photoblogger's car registration...

While those laws are definitely true, try avoiding a police officer if they decide you're a threat. While I'm looking forward to moving back to Toronto this year so that I can have lots of photography subjects (amongst other reasons), I keep wondering how much grief I'm going to get from security types, given that I'm a long-haired, brown-skinned single guy with a goatee that sometimes rivals bikers for length. I'm absolutely serious when I say that I'm considering hiring a cute blonde to accompany me in public when I decide to do photography sessions. It's those rent-a-cop types with a damaged ego that are the worst - almost as bad as US customs officer who wouldn't let me into the United States on Sep 9th (10th?) , 2000.

 Anyone interested in being my photo escort, drop me a comment on my website (linked through my name). Not being chauvinistic, but somehow I think I'll be more successful if the escort is female and flirtatious.

This is also an issue that comes up with the Google's new feature, street view.  There's been some complaints about privacy concerns of photos taken in public that borders voyeurism.  There was also an interesting discussion about this on TWIT that it legally would depend on the amount of zoom that you'd use taking pictures in public (hence, the public aversion for SLR-totin' photographers). Although even that still merits some debate about whether what zoom is appropriate or not. Given that the law really is still playing catch-up on this one, it'd be really better to play it safe for now.

Really excellent article, Adam!

raj, I totally agree! Nearly every time I've been scolded when taking photos has been by the rent-a-cops. I once had one at Harbourfront tell me I could take "three more" as if he was being so gracious. Please... everyone around me were taking photos. There definitely is a lot of stigma towards DSLR photographers when it comes to security.

Thanks, Geofrey! I heard that discussion on TWiT too, and I don't think any judge is going to go against Google with their photovan.

With all the new mapping and navigation services coming onto the market, the laws need to start adapting to the technology available, and not the other way around.

there is a building you may not photograph! It's in Arlington...read more here http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/07/secret_buildings_you_may_not_p.html

Adam, sorry. I forgot to say, "Great article." I love seeing this sort of thing because i have arguments with non-photogs about such matters. Good work.

Heh, I was once confronted by an angry scissor sharpener for taking pictures of his truck (not even if him, just the vehicle!).  He saw me do that as he was going by, put the truck in reverse to come back to me and yelled at me, insisting that I had no right to take his pictures.  This, of course, prompted me to snap a lot more shots of his truck than I originally intended, and made sure I got a picture of his face and his licence plate too. ;-)

Re: TD Plaza tight-ness

I've had a toy cop run-in in the cow-strewn TD Canada Trust Centre's pedestrian plaza as well. While shooting trees and office towers with the <a href=http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor85s/">best lens ever</a>, I was told that "professional photography" is <i>verboten</i>, as it were.

One needs a "photo permit", he claimed, in order to take pictures here. I appealed, arguing that I should be allowed to shoot in the plaza, provided that I swap my lens with an "amateur" one. My appeal was struck down.

Which is a shame, since those iron (?) cows on the grass pastures at the TD Centre would make a great setting for a photoshoot [think wide angle jump portraits and strobes].

As a professional photographer, my experience with such situation is the intended use of the photograph (editorial vs stock). Many properties owner (large or small) are worry about their photo being used in ways that they do not want to - i.e. stock photos and they are not receiving any fees or subject them into some bad press.

Another reason, believe it or not, is insurance issue. If you shoot at, i.e. TD Towers, and somehow someone got hurt because of the shoot, the property is liable for all damages. By requiring a permit, the phtoographer or production company has to produce an insurance of $5 million liability coverage in most case to cover all damages and etc.

The whole issue of harassment is slowly gathering momentum. I admin a flickr group which tracks specific events and relates the circumstances. It additionally provides credible links to support and photographic rights sites. Feel free to use this resource. Some of my "images" with supporting stories are there as well as photographers from the US , Europe, Australia etc.

 site  http://www.flickr.com/groups/leavemealone/

resources  and links http://www.flickr.com/groups/leavemealone/discuss/72157600112017365/

Great article and very interesting discussion. I don't usually have the guts to point a camera directly at a stranger, but I've noticed other people taking my picture from time to time in a public space. Other than wondering if my chin looks weak I don't really mind being in their photos. I would bet most people would have the same reaction.

This is a hot topic in the States as well, for reasons you can imagine in a country that comes up with names like Homeland Security and Patriot Act.  Many bank buildings here will send security after you if you try to take photos of their buildings, claiming that you are not allowed to under the Patriot Act, etc.  The Port Authority of NY and NJ is positively paranoid about anyone shooting any photos of their various tunnels and bridges.  It's really a lousy environment for photography.  One bright note - the NYC subway tried to ban all photos but gave up under a storm of protest.

What an excellent article! I wish I’d had these tips when I embarked on my journalism career but sadly, I had to learn a few lessons the hard way. Here are a few more in case they help out.

I’ve been reprimanded for shooting in the TD concourse as well. They claim that terrorists and criminals can piece together the layouts of their buildings. I guess I can see their point but it's still a bit annoying. Getting photo permissions from the PATH (owned by the city) still doesn’t cover you. You have to get permission from each individual building owner along the path.

 When photographing people in public, I try my best to avoid photographing children. If having children in shots is inevitable, I only publish shots where children are not clearly recognizable, or I ensure that I have asked the parent or guardian for permission (make sure it’s signed) before shooting and/or definitely before publishing. There are a lot of rules around publishing photos of children because of unique safety issues such as custody battles, etc.

Adults can get cranky sometimes but not often and if they’re out in public, they’re fair game!

 When it comes to shooting places (especially sensitive places like hospitals), sidewalks are your best friend. Sidewalks are like a long public strip of fair game space. They’ve allowed me to get photos of hospitals, embassies, stores and even people who would be off limit on private property -- just make sure you have both feet on the sidewalk.

You can take pictures of people in public spaces and publish without consent only if they are part of a group and not singled out or isolated.  ie, if a beautiful girl is suntanning of the beach, you cannot zoom in only on her or crop out the scene so she is the main focus.  Now if there are other people in the picture and even if she is in the center, this is ok because she is now PART of the whole picture and not THE picture. 

As for private properties, you do need property realeases, especially for commercial usage.  Most institutions like banks, airports... will only give permission if they get pay or if you have proper media credentials.  It makes sense as they are just protecting themselves from people "casing" the building and scoping out cameras, security weaknesses.... for possible future act against the institution. 

Legally, you are not forbidden from taking photos anywhere with the exception of privacy areas such as a bathroom, the courts, and top secret documents and areas. 

You do not violate any laws by taking photos in an area to which the general public has access, whether private property or not and you can use those photos as you see fit.

The only authority a security guard may have is to tell you to leave.  You cannot be charged with trespass if you leave the property.   The guard can also certainly not prevent you from leaving since that might constitute assault and false arrest.  Even the police need a warrant to search your equipment.

Know this is very, very late but I just saw this. I could have been that usher you talked about. It's not a power trip but doing my job. (I catch hell if I miss people taking photos.) In the theatre I work, the artwork adorning the theatre is actually under the copyright of the artist and cannot be photographed without his permission. Same thing with photographing anything on the stage, which falls under the copyright regulations of the set designer. As for asking to delete the photos, this is again to protect the copyright. Did you look into copyright issues when you looked at the legalities here?

Yes you do copyright!

"As for asking to delete the photos, this is again to protect the copyright."

That might be the motivation, but you don't actually have a legal right to *make* someone do that. Even looking at them would require a warrant.

Excellent article and references. Some very helpful comments as well. Having recently back into photography after a bit of a hiatus I've found many things have changed in the last 10 years. People are a lot more paranoid and aware of cameras and the opportunities for exploring not entirely public properties have evaporated. In the past you could pretty much get away with being almost anywhere as long as you had an air of belonging-I've shot in places like water treatment plants, factory grounds, train yards, etc without any challenges. These days people come up and ask me what I'm doing when I'm shooting a macro of a flower on the lawn of a factory outlet.
That being said, I still find Toronto is a relatively photographer-friendly city and as long as you look harmless you don't get too many challenges. I'm actually amazed at how many people will stop and wait for you to get your shot before crossing your path when you're shooting in the street.
Thanks for all the good info and the different perspectives on this issue.

A lot of this comes down to hassle. Regardless of what is legal, do you really want to protest your rights or just say fine and go away. A lot of people and "enforcment" types know this and use it as a way of making people do what they want. I feel it important to challange these assumptions.

The simple rule is if you can see it from public property then you can shoot it. (In the red herring cases of a person in their home there is an exception as there may be as well in a car). The tricky part really is what you plan to do with the picture or footage after and thats where it gets complicated; and becomes a another whole thread of talk.

Other posters are correct that 9/11 created a whole paranoia about filming and picture taking (but Google Earth is Ok !) that has also been exploited by commercial interests to create rights that they do not have.

Importantly though, one area that I always use caution with is children. There are creepy types out there as well as a very large over reaction to the possibility of creepy types being out there. If somebody says stop shooting pictures of children, you should explian who you are, offer your card, and move on. You cant win this one and it can lead to a bad scene very fast. I was taking pictures on a public street once of trucks when a woman started yelling that I was a taking pictures of kids. (I didnt have single image of any body); despite offering my press card etc she could not be convinced (I actually started to become mildly scared of her). A crowd gathered and I could tell who they were going to believe so I put my rights away and retreated.

I had a similar run-in with a security guard at one of Toronto's bank buildings last Sunday. I was on the sidewalk and shooting upwards when, from about a half-block away, I heard someone shouting 'Sir, Sir - Stop taking pictures!'. Pretty typical exchange - I can shoot on public property - this is private property, stop immediately - a sidewalk is public property and I'm legally allowed to shoot - this is your first warning, leave now or I'll escalate the issue. I've written more about it at my site (http://blogintrigue.com/?p=14).

I won't name the building in question (yet), as I have contacted their building, property, and security managers via e-mail challenging my experience last week. Depending on the response I get (or don't get), I'll provide more details.

The bottom line is, the law is on OUR side. Stand your ground (using a little common sense), and take the photos you want to (and are legally allowed to).

It's been almost 4 weeks since my run in with a security guard in Toronto.
In my October 6th post, I refrained from mentioning the Toronto building in question to give them a fair chance to respond to an e-mail inquiry I sent their general, building, and security managers. Well, I've given Scotia Plaza almost 4 weeks to reply, and so far they haven't. Feel free to read more about it at http://blogintrigue.com/?p=18.
So, if you're in Toronto with a camera handy, please take a moment to snap a shot or two of Scotia Plaza (just be sure to do it from public property).