julia and ian dance off

Submitted by Kamilla Pietrzyk on June 7, 2006 - 3:06pm.

tags:

Average:

No votes yet

Login or register to post comments
Thumbnail

Ian wins.

Submitted by Mike McGregor on June 7, 2006 - 6:27pm.

...Hands down.

-30-

Mike

Open a book before you open your mouth. <-easy now, its just a signature.

not to mention...

Submitted by Mike McGregor on June 7, 2006 - 9:27pm.

When ever I saw Julia around in the Wellys, it inspired "These Boots Were Made for Walk'n" by Nancy Sinatra in my head...

-30-

Mike

Open a book before you open your mouth. <-easy now, its just a signature.

dance comp

Submitted by Rachel Ayres on June 8, 2006 - 7:40pm.

'fraid I agree with Mike on this one.
However, Julia is much more impressive in person .
and those boots are cute.

Releases and Privacy

Submitted by Charles F. McNeil (not verified) on June 12, 2006 - 12:12pm.

Hi Kamilla,

I tried to email you off list, but it was not set up. I think the pics are great and have absolutely no objection to your use of my image (Lorraine has no objection either to your use of her image).

However, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (Statutes of Canada, 2000, Bill 6, Chapter 5) specifies that a person's image is considered personal information, and that use of personal information must be with the consent of the individual in question. Consent may be either express or implied, but in the case of public distribution of personal images, express consent in the form of signed model releases would be best.

You are probably already dealing with this, but as a professional privacy officer I felt a duty to bring it to your attention.

Cheers

Charles

I've always been under the

Submitted by Mike McGregor on June 12, 2006 - 12:45pm.

I've always been under the impression that whom ever snaps an image, owns the image and can do with it as they please, at least that's what I was taught at school.
In the 2 years I was taking photojournalism, we never delt with model releases. and asking permission was really just a matter of courtesy. In public, If I needed to get a photo, I just took it regardless. The only real leagal issue would be if you misrepresented someone using the photo, then its lible.

-30-

Mike

Open a book before you open your mouth. <-easy now, its just a signature.

not the case at all

Submitted by Jeremy M on June 12, 2006 - 5:24pm.

Hey Charles,

I really don't think that's the case. A person's picture may be covered by PIPEDA if it were taken at their work or in an institution like a school or hospital. That is, an organization that maintains a file on you needs to keep the information in that file private.

But imagine the case if a journalist needed to get multiple consent forms signed for every picture taken. People who didn't want to have their picture in the press (ie. corrupt politicians or bosses on trial) would be able to prevent the press from showing their image.

I spoke to a lawyer about this after the Buy Nothing Day incident a couple years ago. He told me whenever you're in a public place, including private property where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (for example a mall, or the Scouts Canada grounds) you can take as many pictures as you want, and publish them as you see fit. There may be other restrictions like slander and libel... but that's a different question.

Mike is right, once a photographer takes a picture of you in a public space under the law that image belongs to the photographer. It's her-his creative work and they control the copyright.

See also the Privacy Commisioner's Frequently Asked Questions about PIPEDA. The list on what is not covered includes "The collection, use or disclosure of personal information solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes."

Of course, if anyone doesn't want their picture up here, they could probably just ask the person who posted it politely to take it down... and maybe they would.

Jeremy

Hi Guys

Submitted by Charles F. McNeil (not verified) on June 12, 2006 - 6:54pm.

Thanks,

I'm going to reply to both your comments here.

First, if the images are taken for photojournalist purposes, then you are right. The media is given, for purposes of reportage an exemption. No release needed. You are also correct regarding the artistic or literary purposes. Of course, ultimately it is a determination made within the federal court whether the image possesses journalistic, literary or artistic merit.

"I really don't think that's the case. A person's picture may be covered by PIPEDA if it were taken at their work or in an institution like a school or hospital. That is, an organization that maintains a file on you needs to keep the information in that file private. "

It matters not at all where the image was made or in what context. A person's personal information is just that and the act is clear. The intent of the law is to protect privacy, not to award ownership of images. The act is clear that a person's image constitutes personal information.

On the matter of copyright, as a photographer I understand that the issue concerns ownership of an artifact (the photograph) and the right to benefit financially from such ownership. It was once the case that if you were paid to create a photo the ownership of the photo vested in the payor, not the creator. Recent amendments to the copyright act in Canada now attributes ownership to the creator.

Please note that PIPEDA supercedes copyright law.

I'm not trying to give anyone here a hard time, just to comment on privacy as I understand it. If I am wrong, I can accept that with grace. However, regardless of the exact letter of the law, it is always a good practice to seek consent from persons whose image we employ, no?

Consent can be either express or implied and express consent can be either verbal or in writing. That makes getting a person's consent not an arduous undertaking.

I am no lawyer, but I am a working privacy officer and, in my direct experience, lawyers seldom know enough about privacy law to comment in a casual manner. They, as anyone else, need to research the act to offer dependable advice.

Thanks for your input.

Charles

PIPIDA does not apply

Submitted by Charles F. McNeil (not verified) on June 13, 2006 - 5:14am.

I was out riding my bike at 1:30 am and this came into my head. No one connected with the RSF sold a product or service. The RSF as an entity did not sell a product or service either. PIPEDA is an act to regulate commerce. Therefore, PIPEDA does not apply and people may post whatever pictures they wish to.

Charles