Aurora Opens - girls love them

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

They are gone to prepare for their matches.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Aurora Opens - girls love them

They are gone to prepare for their matches.

[William Yuan]

Re: Aurora Opens - girls love them

Hi Egidijus,

By the law, you should get permission from the kids parents to take the pictures and of course you have no right to post the pictures on the public website as same reason.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

get permission is good advice

... you should get permission from the kid's parents to take the pictures ...

Yeah, this is true and it's difficult to do so after the fact. Bring a blank form, get the parent to sign (or maybe have them give permission in front of witnesses) and you are OK. One of the ways around this is to take photographs of the backs of kids and not show their faces.

It may mean nothing or it may become a very big deal. Please don't make a habit of this or you will get yourself into trouble eventually.

[John Coleman]

Re: get permission is good advice

This is an interesting question... I wonder what the law is.

I believe, based on common sense and common practice, that it is perfectly legal to take a photograph of anyone in a public place. As regards posting the photograph on the internet, I believe that posting is legal, provided the photograph is not pornographic or offensive.

If I go to any newspaper website, there are lots of pictures taken in public places... people jogging in the park, walking down the street, etc. I seriously doubt the paper gets their consent.

I organize a big annual tournament for children, and the local newspaper always publishes a photograph or two, both in print and on their website. No consent is ever requested, or given, as far as I know.

Edit: here is a link to Monroi's photographs of players at CYCC 2010. I was one of the organisers, and I am sure no permission was given by the players for photographs. http://picasaweb.google.com/MonRoi.I...mpionship2010#

[Mark Biong]

Re: Aurora Opens - girls love them

I always thought that we, immigrants are aware that North America is the "land of freedom". What is really the meaning of the word "freedom"! The people imposing rules about photography should have not allowed the market of cameras in the first place if such unavoidable circumstances can happen, in this case the violation of privacy as claimed. As a matter of facts in the information age, I don't see any freedom any longer. Freedom is limitless. Besides, its posted in a chess related website not in a pornography website.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Aurora Opens - girls love them

By the law, you should get permission from the kids parents to take the pictures and of course you have no right to post the pictures on the public website as same reason.

Unless you will cite the law or will mention the photo you dislike, they will stay here. Pictures are taken on a public event.
There is a small summary about photography in public places http://ambientlight.ca/wp-content/up...-Laws-V1.0.pdf

[John Coleman]

Re: Aurora Opens - girls love them

Thanks for the link, Egidijus. For once, the law appears to triumph over fear-mongering.

I used to run the Windsor Chess website, and only once was I asked by a parent to delete an image. It was a group shot of players at an event, the kid in question was at the end, so cropping was all that was needed.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Please respect privacy Or "Don't be stupid"

Unless you will cite the law or will mention the photo you dislike, they will stay here. Pictures are taken on a public event.

OK, since you put it like that...

Individual Rights – Waivers (Province of Ontario, CANADA)

Do I need someone's permission to photograph them?

You do not generally need permission to photograph a person for the purposes of personal photography. However, for commercial activities, privacy protections usually require consent.

Privacy protections set out in the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) apply to personal information collected in the course of commercial activities. Any photograph in which a person is identifiable conveys personal information. Thus, in most cases, PIPEDA requires a photographer to obtain consent from anyone that will be identifiable in a photograph. This requirement does not apply to photographs taken solely for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes.

Do I need someone's permission to distribute photographs of them?

You generally need permission to distribute a photograph of a person, even for the purpose of personal photography.

For commercial activities, PIPEDA requires consent to distribute photographs depicting identifiable individuals, similar to its requirement for collecting personal information. Again, this requirement does not apply to distribution for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes. However, provincial and common law privacy protections still apply.

For all activities, whether commercial in nature or not, provincial and common law privacy protections limit the distribution of photographs. Any court may recognize a lawsuit based on a violation of privacy under the common law. As well, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have privacy legislation that specifically gives individuals the right to sue for privacy breaches. In Quebec, privacy is protected by a person's “right to respect for his private life” under the Quebec Charter. Distributing an identifiable image of a person without consent is likely to violate one or more of these privacy laws.

When do I need a waiver or release from someone I'm photographing?

If you are photographing people in the course of commercial activities, you should obtain permission from all subjects that will be identifiable within your photographs. For any type of use, you should obtain permission if you intend to publish or exhibit your photographs. This includes online distribution. Courts have found that even photographs posted to Internet newsgroups without permission may violate privacy rights.

When obtaining permission from people depicted in your photographs, you should clearly inform them about how you intend to use the photographs. For example, let your subjects know whether you intend to post the photographs on Facebook or publish them in a commercial magazine. A signed “waiver” is best in order to fully protect yourself, but, in most cases, verbal permission should be sufficient to post personal photographs to the Internet.

CIPPIC

This last one is important. If the photographer simply showed common decency and sought permission rather than treating such respectful conduct with contempt, then a court would probably throw out any related case ... unless, of course, the photos were used for commercial reasons. (So, if you leave the photos, then any troll representing the legal rights of someone photographed might decide at a later date to threaten you, etc. and you only really know the result once its over.)

There is a follow-up piece on the digital rights of photographers from a democratic or left-wing perspective. Feel free to ignore the article if you don't share the views of the author.

Photographers, know your digital rights!

Erwin C. has also provided a Charter interpretation by a photographer below. This is, however, not legal advice.

[Erwin Casareno]

Re: Aurora Opens - girls love them

Unless you will cite the law or will mention the photo you dislike, they will stay here. Pictures are taken on a public event.
There is a small summary about photography in public places http://ambientlight.ca/wp-content/up...-Laws-V1.0.pdf

Thank you Egijs for posting the link on photographers rights to take a photo.
This document clearly defines the boundary between privacy and public rights.

The photo law is not clearly understood by many people, including a public librarian. There should be signs posted prohibiting use of camera.

Your link has provided me with ammunition to explain the photo law to individuals who do not understand what the law is all about.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: Aurora Opens - girls love them

Thank you Egijs for posting the link on photographers rights to take a photo.
This document clearly defines the boundary between privacy and public rights.

This is an interpretation of the law by one person who is a professional photographer. Interestingly, there is no disclaimer on his part noting that what he says is not legal advice, etc.. This is not the way the CIPPIC posts their views on the matter.

Your link has provided me with ammunition to explain the photo law to individuals who do not understand what the law is all about.

We have competing interpretations: one, by an individual photographer and the other by a Canadian public interest organization, that includes a battery of specialized lawyers, with help from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council . Which "ammunition" do you choose?

The Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) is a law and technology clinic based at the Centre for Law, Technology & Society at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law in Canada. CIPPIC’s mandate is to advocate in the public interest on diverse issues arising at the intersection of law and technology. In pursuit of its public mandate, CIPPIC regularly provides expert testimony before Canadian parliamentary committees, participates in the regulatory activities of various Canadian quasi-judicial bodies such as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, appears at all levels of Canada’s judicial system, and participates in various international Internet governance fora. In addition, CIPPIC advises clients (organizational and otherwise) on matters with a public interest dimension, provides public education resources on various legal issues and, by its location at the Faculty of Law, provides direct training and education for law students.

CIPPIC was established at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law in the fall of 2003. It is the first legal clinic of its kind in Canada. In 2007, technology innovator and entrepreneur Dr. Robert Glushko and his wife, law and technology pioneer Professor Pamela Samuelson, made a large donation to CIPPIC, allowing the clinic to continue its student-centered research and advocacy on technology-related policy and law reform.

[Steve Karpik]

Re: Please respect privacy Or "Don't be stupid"

Nigel, your source is the "Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic". I think they are advocating for what is appropriate and decent in their minds and that may be open to debate. I am curious what laws, specifically in Ontario, apply. Certain things are clearly illegal (like shoplifting) and you will get punished if caught. Other things are perhaps not so clear cut and this may be the case here.

Many places of business, like hockey arenas, museums, etc., have conditions associated with granting admission whereby you agree to have your picture taken. For instance, if you are at the Air Canada Centre watching the Maple Leafs, there is a chance that your picture may end up on Hockey Night in Canada (which could be embarrassing if you told your boss that you were sick at home and could not take your shift at Walmart).

In public places, I think that one cannot assert a right to privacy. For instance, if I am at a demonstration or riot like what happened in Vancouver in 2011 after the last game of the Stanley Cup, my picture may be taken and it could end up in a newspaper like these individuals who ended up in Sun News Network media: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archive...9-164556-g.jpg.

Public institutions, like government funded museums, art galleries, etc. are usually pretty careful about using photos of people but government organizations tend to be held to a higher standard than the private sector.

For something like a chess club or chess tournament, I'm not sure what the law is. Often organizers will err on the side of caution and ask permission. But would a photographer need to get permission to take photos at a city football championship?

I don't think the issue is black and white. I usually err on the side of caution to avoid trouble.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Please respect privacy Or "Don't be stupid"

OK, since you put it like that...

From Copyright Act:
“artistic work” includes paintings, drawings, maps, charts, plans, photographs, engravings, sculptures, works of artistic craftsmanship, architectural works, and compilations of artistic works;

From your citation:
Again, this requirement does not apply to distribution for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes. However, provincial and common law privacy protections still apply.

Go figure :)

Few players asked me not to take their pictures. Many players used my pictures in as their profiles on Facebook. One picture got so many likes that I wondered about my judgment as I almost deleted it :)
Only one person asked to take one picture down (and probably it was not good enough).
Only once I was asked not to take pictures at all. It was at a public Toronto skating rink when wanted to take a picture of the first skating of my son. That forced me to investigate it more deeply. Though it was a long time ago...

[Nigel Hanrahan]

No brainer

Few players asked me not to take their pictures. Many players used my pictures in as their profiles on Facebook. One picture got so many likes that I wondered about my judgment as I almost deleted it :)
Only one person asked to take one picture down (and probably it was not good enough).
Only once I was asked not to take pictures at all. It was at a public Toronto skating rink when wanted to take a picture of the first skating of my son. That forced me to investigate it more deeply. Though it was a long time ago...

Neither you nor I are a lawyer specializing in privacy laws. It's probably prudent to consider carefully the opinion of those who are. Like those over at CIPPIC.

You will probably not get into trouble with your photos here but there is always the possibility that you could. If you insist on your "right" to photograph children playing chess then you are likely to eventually come up against a parent who insists on their "right" to privacy for their child. And then it's out of your hands and you will find out ... the hard way.

This is a no-brainer. If one parent says "No" and you ignore their wishes, you can be quite certain they will talk to other parents about it. Then the law doesn't matter if you are facing one, or several, angry parent(s) and you will always lose those battles in which you are on the other side of parents protecting the (perceived) best interest of their children.

Perhaps you are seeking permission and just pretending that you don't for the fun of arguing about it?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: No brainer

Perhaps you are seeking permission and just pretending that you don't for the fun of arguing about it?

During the big Open I don't go after every parent cause I don't know everyone :/ Though, not to notice me taking pictures is almost impossible - not many players are tall as me and with a camera. No problems with parents yet.

Several times I asked parents permissions during Vlad's tournaments in the PUB. There were no problems with them.

I was asked to come and take pictures to a fundraiser this Sunday. All this legal matters do not fascinate me.