公众人物人物也有很多种，只有那种需要公共捧的公众人物在公共场合没肖像权，政客，电影演员。一个私营企业老板寻求过公众的关注啦？
转推：偶遇梦碗粥
- 主题发起人 在路上99
- 发布时间 2019-09-23
还有就是偶发的事件，她在被捕以前不是，被捕以后就是公众人物
几年前列治文渔人码头发生过小女孩被海狮咬住拖下水,被人传视频到youtube,后来小女孩家长要告拍摄者。律师说难,有两种情况可以告,一是有谋利二是涉及隐私。
最后编辑: 2019-09-23
报道她出席听证会应该，没有问题。人家吃饭和听证会有关系吗？ 只是你的兴趣点把她的一切户外活动dou 与官司联系起来了。
但是呢，是否犯法由法官说了算。继续贴，继续拍，只要她不告，屁事没有。
乐得看热闹哈。
乐得看热闹哈。
那你让她告拍照的，大家看看
他才不是普法，他想与众不同，拍孟的马屁，以引起懵碗粥的注意，以后赏他口饭吃，嘻嘻
看热闹，你们随便。
有些人，拿着共产党的那一套来反共产党，所谓的民主法治，就是嘴上说说，本质上啥也不懂，张口就来。
呵呵，看不惯一些法盲的做法，说两句，不行? 你还管我的言论自由了? 就许你整天反共?
恩，国内那么多上访的，被割器官的他不去普法，跑加拿大来给亿万富翁的女儿含冤
你们，那你又是谁
我准备大选一完就把土豆的像拆下来，拿回家供在自己神堂，侵犯肖像权没有啊？
我就是要侵她的权，求她起诉我。
你也是法盲一个，懒得跟你讲。
什么叫法盲？我不知道那样做违法吗？
拍别人照不违法，未经同意发行这些照片属侵犯隐私。
socialmedia.findlaw.ca
When can someone take pictures in public?
Individual privacy rights are an important point of law, but so is your freedom to take a picture. The two often collide, so photographers and subjects should know their rights.
You can take photos of almost anything or anyone in a public space, but what you do with them raises larger questions of privacy, compensation, and more.
Most simply, if you’re taking photos for your own albums and not publishing or selling them, you can snap just about anything out in public. It’s more complicated when you take photos of people though.
Firstly, anyone in your photo should be out in public as well. If you’re in a public space but your telephoto lens can see into someone’s bathroom window, you’re violating their reasonable expectation of privacy.
People don’t have that same reasonable expectation when they’re out in public. But it doesn’t mean they forfeit any right to privacy.
Generally, you don’t need someone’s permission just to take a photo, but you will need their consent if you’re planning to sell or distribute it anywhere.
In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada made a landmark decision in a case where a Quebec woman sued a magazine for publishing a photo of her taken in a public spot without her permission.
The court agreed the magazine violated her privacy and saying, “the fault lay not in the taking of the photograph but in its publication . . . since the respondent was in a public place when the photograph was taken, that act alone could not be considered an invasion of her privacy. However, the unauthorized publication of the photograph constituted an infringement of her anonymity, which is an essential element of the right to privacy.”
She was awarded only $2,000, since the photo’s publication didn’t injure her in any way. But the ruling established some important considerations on public photography and privacy rights.
Another important conclusion from that case is that you don’t need consent from bystanders, crowds, or people “incidental” to the photo.
If you’re taking a photo of at a hockey game or of the CN Tower for example, you don’t have to try cropping out anyone else who might be in the frame. The court considers them “an anonymous element of the scenery, even if it is technically possible to identify individuals.” The important concern is that they aren’t the focus of the picture.
But if a person is the subject of your photo, they’re prominent and identifiable, and you plan to publish, distribute, or sell that shot, play it safe and get their consent.
Thomson Reuters Canada
Act with confidence in a complex world: Learn more about Thomson Reuters in Canada.
Individual privacy rights are an important point of law, but so is your freedom to take a picture. The two often collide, so photographers and subjects should know their rights.
You can take photos of almost anything or anyone in a public space, but what you do with them raises larger questions of privacy, compensation, and more.
Most simply, if you’re taking photos for your own albums and not publishing or selling them, you can snap just about anything out in public. It’s more complicated when you take photos of people though.
Firstly, anyone in your photo should be out in public as well. If you’re in a public space but your telephoto lens can see into someone’s bathroom window, you’re violating their reasonable expectation of privacy.
People don’t have that same reasonable expectation when they’re out in public. But it doesn’t mean they forfeit any right to privacy.
Generally, you don’t need someone’s permission just to take a photo, but you will need their consent if you’re planning to sell or distribute it anywhere.
In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada made a landmark decision in a case where a Quebec woman sued a magazine for publishing a photo of her taken in a public spot without her permission.
The court agreed the magazine violated her privacy and saying, “the fault lay not in the taking of the photograph but in its publication . . . since the respondent was in a public place when the photograph was taken, that act alone could not be considered an invasion of her privacy. However, the unauthorized publication of the photograph constituted an infringement of her anonymity, which is an essential element of the right to privacy.”
She was awarded only $2,000, since the photo’s publication didn’t injure her in any way. But the ruling established some important considerations on public photography and privacy rights.
Another important conclusion from that case is that you don’t need consent from bystanders, crowds, or people “incidental” to the photo.
If you’re taking a photo of at a hockey game or of the CN Tower for example, you don’t have to try cropping out anyone else who might be in the frame. The court considers them “an anonymous element of the scenery, even if it is technically possible to identify individuals.” The important concern is that they aren’t the focus of the picture.
But if a person is the subject of your photo, they’re prominent and identifiable, and you plan to publish, distribute, or sell that shot, play it safe and get their consent.
注册或登录来发表评论
您必须是注册会员才可以发表评论
注册帐号
注册帐号. 太容易了!
登录
已有帐号? 在这里登录.
Similar threads
2023-03-08有新回复
全楼:0.04
oldfriend85
中国话题
2024回国记录
- 0.07 超赞 赏
- Jacklyns ,#485
- 2024-01-18
- 聊天・灌水・娱乐・新闻・时事
2024-10-26有新赞
全楼:0.96
wisdom
