As an avid photographer, this video really hit a chord with me:
For the record, I always strive to be respectful when taking photos. Whenever possible, I ask people for permission before taking photos of themselves, their children, or their pets. For example, a woman once didn't want me taking a photo of her dog so I didn't.
What really bugs me though is when "Rent-A-Cops" (or other power-hungry souls) try to tell me that I cannot take photos on public property. Personally, the most egregious case of this ever was in downtown Vancouver last year. A movie was being filmed over about a 200 metre long stretch on one street. Like hundreds of others, I went up to the edge of the set to observe the action. I then pulled out a little pocket camera and started taking some shots. An abrasive young woman came up and told me that I couldn't take photos. I pointed out to her that this was Canada and not Communist China. She threatened to call the police officer over. While I don't believe that she or the officer would have any legal right to tell me to stop, I just decided to avoid the hassle and walk away. I did later contact the Film Office at City Hall but they refused to answer my questions.
Some links to Canadian laws can be found here but they're rather non-specific.
I'm not entirely sure from your description but were there actors in the picture? I've learned from my newspaper days these people get frantic over somebody taking their pictures without permission. (I was told it was a union thing.) I doubt they could have done much in a public setting other than make a big deal out of it and hope you go away, which you wisely did. Life's too short and why flatter them?
Here's a hoot - a local construction company got mad at us over a news story and tried to stop us from taking pictures of a new school they were building. That didn't work at all.
Actually, Canada is a lot like Communist China. We don't have a lot of freedom left if you really stop to compare what it was like forty or fifty years ago. I am old, I remember.
What is different is that we still have the remnants of free capitalistic, democratic society around us, so it doesn't yet feel like communist China, but just wait ... it's coming.
We hope that Harper and perhaps Sarah Palin will work to turn it around before it's too late.
As someone who is never without a camera on me, I'm surprised that I have rarely been asked to stop photographing things. One of my favorite spots to photograph are stores that have "no photography" signs and surveillance cameras. I look for a good spot where I can get a picture with the surveillance camera in the same frame as the sign. I've been asked to stop photographing at such places and I've never had a response when I ask the people whether or not the surveillance cameras are in violation of the "no photography" policy. My discussions with such individuals lead me to believe that logical thought is now a very rare commodity.
Cell phone cameras make it very easy to take photos and movies anywhere but the resolution is crappy. I far prefer my 9 Mpixel camera which shoots in dimmer light and can do closeups. I've stopped making notes now and just take a photograph of things as it's so much simpler.
For photography in hostile environments, I would recommend getting one of the small pen cameras that have a few Gb of flash RAM and are quite inconspicuous. Another option is a small camera built into sunglasses which has the advantage of one knowing what is being filmed as one just has to look at it. I figure if someone is filming me, I can film them and I'm sure there are lots of surveillance pictures of me photographing surveillance cameras from various angles.
It's my right to record what I see except in a few select environments; I don't do photography of people on Wreck beach or in change rooms but pretty well every other public place is fair game.
The police despise cameras more than any other sect or group. You need only follow some of the stories out of the US to see how they consider a camera to be nearly as great a threat as a firearm.
I would have stood my ground on that one. You're in a public place with no expectation of privacy.
loki, I hadn't thought about the scenario you described of cameras filming me but me supposedly not being allowed to film there. I can just see their heads explode when you direct them into that logic trap. Hilarious!
One of my favorite spots to photograph are stores that have "no photography" signs and surveillance cameras. I look for a good spot where I can get a picture with the surveillance camera in the same frame as the sign. I've been asked to stop photographing at such places and I've never had a response when I ask the people whether or not the surveillance cameras are in violation of the "no photography" policy.
Probably because they can't believe anyone could be so ignorant as to question a store's policy on their own private property. It's entirely logical to prohibit photography while using surveillance cameras on one's own property.
A case like this, involving open filming on public property and refusal to pay a "citation" fine, needs to go to court. It can be publicized online - I'd send in my pathetic donation, and so would a lot of other people. We need always to push back.
fiddle, a store is entirely within its rights to post a sign that says, for example, "No photography except as authorized by store management". When they post a sign saying "No photography allowed" and then have surveillance cameras, I'll call them on their logical error.
I was an avid amateur photographer. the repeated rule was you cannot publish a photo taken in public without permission of the individual(s).
but it is completely LEGAL to take the picture IN PUBLIC PLACES.
When they post a sign saying "No photography allowed" and then have surveillance cameras, I'll call them on their logical error.
Because I post 'no hunting' signs doesn't mean i can't hunt on my own land.
To suggest otherwise is quack logic.
I think that the story of Rodney King is told to all new recruits in both Canada & the USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdl8ziKU3Jw
and where I work, if anyone doesn't know what they're doing, they simply make it up.. which especially applies to those that think they can tell people to stop recording video images.
It's been quite awhile since folks believed their soul was being captured by a camera.
fiddle, logically if you were to post "No Hunting" signs on the border of your property it would imply that other activities on your land are permitted. I would suggest a "Keep out. Surviving Trespassers will be prosecuted" sign as being a lot more efficient as when I see a "No Hunting" sign when I'm hiking I take that to mean that I can walk through the property so marked.
The situation with a rural property is quite different than a store open to the public. On your property you have the expectation of privacy but you can't stop people from photographing your property from outside the property line. In a store that is open to the public, a "No photography allowed" sign is simply idiotic if there are surveillance cameras and I dispute it when I feel so inclined.
Another idiotic sign I've run into is the "No recording devices allowed" the few times that I've had to appear in court on medical legal matters. I have asked if I have to check the pens that I always have on me as I can use the pens to make a record of the court proceedings hence a pen is a "recording device". I've also seen lawyers with laptops in court and almost every modern laptop has a built in microphone and webcam. Logically, these machines should not be allowed in court but I observed no action on the part of court officials to check the lawyers laptops to ensure that they weren't making audio recordings of the proceedings. Similarly, the human retina and auditory circuitry records visual and auditory stimuli and hence meets the criteria for a recording device. My cell phone can store several days worth of audio on an external flash card and I've walked around with the cell phone in recording mode just to see what it picks up during a few hours of audio recording.
When it comes to photographing what one sees, technology will soon be at the point where everyone can record whatever they're seeing during the course of their daily activities. Right not there aren't many "gargoyles" (using Neil Stephenson's term) who stream video of whatever they're looking at to wearable computers but it won't be long before the necessary recording technology is implanted in people. I figure if the state wants to record what I do, then I have just as much of a right to record what state officials do.
fiddle, logically if you were to post "No Hunting" signs on the border of your property it would imply that other activities on your land are permitted.
I see you carefully side-stepped the point that I could still hunt even though no one else is allowed to hunt.
You would have us believe that if a store posts business hours, no business can be conducted outside those hours. Same quack logic.
"Because I post 'no hunting' signs doesn't mean i can't hunt on my own land.
To suggest otherwise is quack logic."
When I took firearms safety, that's exactly what we were told the law is. No Hunting, means exactly that. No HUnting Allowed by anybody. You are creating a hunting free zone with such a sign.
No Hunting without Permission, means something very different. Usually No Trespassing signs are posted when what you mean is, I can hunt, you can't.
For what it's worth, I have a letter from Vic Toews (Justice Minister at the time) stating that the federal government has no problem with individuals photographing police activity in public places.
I constantly carry a camera/recorder/video cam on me in the form of a mobile phone. I specifically chose a phone where the camera lens is not obvious and when activated it looks like I'm just using the phone. in this deteriorating rule of law era, one must have the capacity to capture candid evidence of any encouter with authority.
The one thing that defines the new century's culture is the common abuse of authority in democratic nations. It must be confronted and prosecuted every time it rears its ugly head. Perhaps the courts will send the control freaks a message that they serve the public and must be respectful of our civil liberty and privacy or face judicial correction. As it is now, most police force directives have them acting like an occupation force.
Brian Gardiner - in Alberta a landowner is completely within their rights to post land "No Hunting" and then permit hunting to whomever he/she please. As loki, has already pointed out - the "no hunting" sign implies that other activities are permissible without permission.
and that my friends is pretty much directly from SRD / AF&W division. In other words, this is something that's going to vary from province to province since property rights are PROVINCIAL domain.
As loki, has already pointed out - the "no hunting" sign implies that other activities are permissible without permission.
Not if the land is fenced, has a natural boundary, or is cultivated.
From the Petty Trespass Act for Alberta;
2.1(1) Entry on land may be prohibited by notice to that effect, and entry is prohibited without any notice on land
(a) that is a lawn, garden or land that is under cultivation,
(b) that is surrounded by a fence, a natural boundary or a combination of a fence and a natural boundary, or
(c) that is enclosed in a manner that indicates the owner’s or occupier’s intention to keep persons off the land or to keep animals on the land.
Additionally, trespassing on private property at night may be a Criminal Code of Canada violation.
"it won't be long before the necessary recording technology is "
well low key, this is the very first time I have seen anyone assert a variation I have envisioned of video cameras mounted next to the hinges on standard eyewear, communicating with a backpack which is recording the image on a server in the ether.
what will we catch the dumfcuk cops at then?
will anything be done? it's a binary (appropriately) outcome; either we are a police state or we are not yet.
but it will happen and I eagerly await conservatists to start bellyaching when it is *their* cranium at the receiving end of the truncheons.
An interesting update to this regarding Washington state. Although the video mentioned that recording police was problematic due to two party consent laws, the courts have recently ruled that a police officer acting in an official capacity is not a private party under the intent of the law. If he is conducting official business he (or she) has no expectation of privacy.
Did hell freeze over? I suddenly find myself in 100% agreement with SDA.