Need Advice - Canadian Law

[BrianShaw]

Some morality might even include helping them. There’s considerable diversity in morality.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But it's not spelled out in law.

There are two ways of seeing the law. You can view it first and foremost as something that prevents you from doing something to someone. Or you can view it first and foremost as something meant to protect someone from what you may do to that person. That nuance is important on how that law may be interpreted. So saying that things aren't "spelled out" in the law does not mean that whatever is not "spelled out" is absent from it. There are some clear-cut laws, but there are also some with grey areas that can only be filled once it comes before a judge, in accordance with circumstance, context, etc. My feeling is that what we are discussing here is such a law.

Now this is my reading. @MattKing is welcomed to correct me if I've got it wrong.

 

[MattKing]

There are two ways of seeing the law. You can view it first and foremost as something that prevents you from doing something to someone. Or you can view it first and foremost as something meant to protect someone from what you may do to that person. That nuance is important on how that law may be interpreted. So saying that things aren't "spelled out" in the law does not mean that whatever is not "spelled out" is absent from it. There are some clear-cut laws, but there are also some with grey areas that can only be filled once it comes before a judge, in accordance with circumstance, context, etc. My feeling is that what we are discussing here is such a law.

Now this is my reading. @MattKing is welcomed to correct me if I've got it wrong.

That's at least part of where the differences between criminal law and non-criminal law reside .
But when it comes to the issue of whether one should take photos of people on the street, I don't think it is the law that serves as a disincentive, other than the fact that many publications are reluctant to publish photos including recognizable photos of people without having model releases in hand - something that it can be challenging to obtain from people on the street.

 

[Don_ih]

There are two ways of seeing the law. You can view it first and foremost as something that prevents you from doing something to someone. Or you can view it first and foremost as something meant to protect someone from what you may do to that person. That nuance is important on how that law may be interpreted. So saying that things aren't "spelled out" in the law does not mean that whatever is not "spelled out" is absent from it. There are some clear-cut laws, but there are also some with grey areas that can only be filled once it comes before a judge, in accordance with circumstance, context, etc. My feeling is that what we are discussing here is such a law.

Judgment is a separate issue. In order to be brought before a judge, someone must've thought the issue did at least violate some law - perhaps based on a creative interpretation of that law - and the judge is firstly tasked with determining whether or not that even makes sense. So, assuming the issue gets as far as being before a judge, the result can still be one where he or she says, "That's not what the law means." and the case gets thrown out.

Regardless of that, it side-steps the issue of morality and broadens the scope of legality. You can engage in all kinds of immoral behaviour without breaking any laws, no matter how they are interpreted.

 

[BrianShaw]

Ask a lawyer and move on.

There's no better response to the OP than this. But considering that this is Photrio...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Gray laws are the worst. People should clearly understand when they are breaking the law. So should prosecutors, judges, and police. Many trials that have led to guilty conclusions have been thrown out on appeal because the law wasn't written clearly enough.

 

[BrianShaw]

He he; little in life is crystal clear or black-and-white (binary). Heck, even B&W film has shades of gray, and photographers argue about how many and whether it’s gray or grey. Welcome to life…

 

[MattKing]

Who says any law is being broken?
Most law isn't about an imposition of penalties. Most law is about how rights and responsibilities are shared - at least in mostly common law jurisdictions, like the US and Canada.
That is overlaid with a somewhat different approach in jurisdictions like Quebec and Louisiana where modern versions of what was once the Napoleonic Code have relevance.

 

[BrianShaw]

Who says any law is being broken?
Most law isn't about an imposition of penalties. Most law is about how rights and responsibilities are shared - at least in mostly common law jurisdictions, like the US and Canada.
That is overlaid with a somewhat different approach in jurisdictions like Quebec and Louisiana where modern versions of what was once the Napoleonic Code have relevance.

And on that thought, it might be important to note that being sued is a lot different from being arrested for a crime/offence.

There are billions of “Photography is not a crime” videos on YouTube, etc. What’s common is getting hassled because some folks are annoyed and/or don’t want to be photographed. There seems never to be any crime/offense related to photography even when detainment/arrest occurs. Of course, there probably are countries that are an exception but more often it’s true that photography is not a crime, or an offense, or particularly immoral.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The plethora of cell phones has made street photography less objectionable. Not only because of travelers, but the locals use them constantly as well.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The plethora of cell phones has made street photography less objectionable.

Well, isn't that like saying that the plethora of cars and SUVs has made air pollution less objectionable? Or, to take the logic to it'st most absurd limit, that the plethora of guns carried by people has made gun violence less objectionable?

Yeah, I'm pushing the evelope here, but the point is that if something is deemed objectionable, it's objectionable no matter how many people do it. The difficulty is in defining what is objectionable, why it should be, or no longer be, objectionable, and for whom it is objectionable.

 

[BrianShaw]

I understand Alan yet tend to agree more with Alex based on recent personal experience where I simply held my phone high so I could read the screen with bifocal lens and was accosted because someone believed i was taking pictures and didn't want to believe that I wasn’t. Unfortunately an assault/battery investigation followed.

 

[Don_ih]

I think, if anything, people are more wary of having their photo taken. Yes, there are people taking pictures all around you all the time - but they're not pictures of you. You notice when they are.

 

[Mike Té]

Any advice is appreciated.

Well; law, consequences...
Suppose, say, you take a picture of the Ukrainian consulate in Toronto and you inadvertently take a picture of another photographer on the scene. The next day, the Ukrainian ambassador to Canada is visiting Toronto and disappears.
Turns out that that other photographer is an operative, also adept in the use of Novichok. Now you're in real danger.
Maybe should have asked his permission.

 

[CMoore]

Are you guys scripting James Bond Novels or discussing street photography.?
Come The F On Already

Just do it and enjoy the process and photos.