blogTO Recent Comments: Your Rights as a Photographer in Toronto

David

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:57:42 PDT

I have a hard time believing that there isn't some legislation out there which clearly addresses this issue, because it seems pretty common. I had an encounter this afternoon with some security guards outside a meatpacking plant on Glen Scarlett Road. All I wanted was some photos documenting the various industrial buildings as seen from the street so as to record them for posterity (I'm guessing that in about ten years some of the processing plants might get turned into a housing development). The security guys actually insisted on looking at the photos in my camera to make sure I had deleted the ones I had taken. Surely there must be something more official somewhere saying whether or not it's legal to take pictures of buildings from the street - I'd like to make sure that I'm in the right before I get too indignant. Actually, if I had more energy, I'd like to organize a group of say, 100 photographers who'd converge on the site simultaneously.

Sylwia

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:57:51 PDT

great article...big thanks

Joel

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:34:03 PDT

I had a run-in with the TD security guard lately as well. I was using a monopod and his only complaint was that I was using it to take photos of the bank towers in the court yard. I expected this, but he had no problem with me taking photos hand-held 'tourist' photos, which I continued to do unheeded.

Ryan

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:11:23 PDT

I ran into some issues today with a security guard in a public park. It's a park owned by the city, and the security guard told me I need a permit to do a photoshoot on city property. It wasn't a commercial shoot, just a test shoot with a model friend, and I was under the impression that I don't need a permit to do non-commercial photography on city property. I didn't push it, since I didn't have any proof one way or the other... But all my research seems to indicate that yes, as long as it's non-commercial, I'm actually ok to shoot there. Of course, because of the city workers strike, I can't actually call the permits office to ask them. Anybody have any ideas?

David Wood

Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:14:05 PDT

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).

David Wood

Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:28:05 PDT

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).

scott Dobson

Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:20:30 PDT

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.

Sniderscion

Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:13:15 PDT

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.

Stephanie

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:10:00 PDT

"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.

Morgan

Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:51:46 PDT

Yes you do copyright!

marina

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:27:49 PDT

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?

ronnoco

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:27:28 PDT

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.

John Ly

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:22:55 PDT

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.

Stacey

Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:14:11 PDT

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.

uSkyscraper

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:35:19 PDT

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.

Cassandra

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:31:15 PDT

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.

jannx

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:54:48 PDT

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/

dchan

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:50:07 PDT

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.

mike_G

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:33:30 PDT

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 http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor85s/">best lens ever, I was told that "professional photography" is verboten, 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].

chephy

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:14:53 PDT

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. ;-)