Paris - 'The One Challenge' - reminder

[mike marlow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry this is a cut-and-paste but thought it might be relevant:

 

Shot without consent - Local photographer crusades against Quebec-only restrictions on street photography

 

by KRISTIAN GRAVENOR

 

So you got one of those newfangled digital cameras and you've gone snaphappy, shooting photos of friends, relatives, strangers, pedestrians, squirrels, buildings, trees and fellow party animals. Then you send them around or pop them up on a Web site.

 

You might consider slowing down.

 

Little known fact about life in Quebec: if you don't have official permission from the people who appear in your photos, they can sue you for making such images public. And that applies even if you were to e-mail the picture to a few friends, or put it on a little-frequented Web site.

 

Quebec is the only place in North America where photographers are required to get permission from the subjects of photographs that will be presented to the public. The only situations where such a permission is not mandatory is when the photo is of a crowd, if it's considered legitimate news or considered to be in the public interest.

 

The rule is being strongly criticized, especially by veteran local photographer Gilbert Duclos, who describes the legal requirement as "imbecilic." He's presently touring with his 2005 documentary, La Rue Zone Interdite (This Street Off Limits), about the harm the rule is doing. Appearing in the film are photographers, including Roger Lemoyne, Yves Beaulieu and Marc Riboud, jurists, including former Supreme Court Chief Justice Antonio Lamer and Duclos' lawyer Viviane de Kinder, and journalists like Robert Ménard, founder of Reporters sans frontières.

 

Lens and law

 

Duclos has a pretty good idea about the issue. It was his 1988 photo of Pascale-Claude Aubry, then 17, wearing a black sweater and sporting cropped bleached hair sitting at the entrance of a downtown Scotiabank that led to the law. Duclos donated the photo to a small, now-defunct literary magazine Vice-Versa, which used the image on its cover.

 

Aubry - who hadn't given permission for the shot - claimed that the photo led people to "laugh" at her. She demanded $10,000 in compensation. Duclos offered an amount of "what I would have paid a model." She refused and sued, with the case going all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

Aubry won. In 1998 the Supreme Court ordered Duclos to pay Aubry $2,000. More importantly, the court issued the edict that henceforth, publishing an unauthorized photo of somebody violates Quebec law.

 

"I denounce that decision," says Duclos. "I find it so stupid. I was in shock when it was announced. I never thought I'd lose. For years after that, I stopped doing photos in Montreal. Other photographers tell me, ‘Gilbert, since your judgement, it's hell shooting here.' They all feel that they can't do anything because they have to ask permission all day."

 

Duclos believes the decision violates artistic expression and damages the future historical record of our era. "The whole story of street photography is based on images taken on the street without permission," he says. "The most beautiful photos are taken on the street just like that. When you ask permission, it's no longer natural. I feel that if the photo is degrading, then I can understand people objecting, but if it's somebody walking on the street eating an ice cream on a hot day or something, then it's not defamatory, there's nothing wrong with it."

 

Duclos's documentary was most recently screened in June at a photography conference in Prague. It will appear at the Ex-Centris theatre on Sept. 9 (in French).

 

He tried to interview Aubry for the documentary, without luck. He blurs out the forbidden photo of her in his film.

 

Watch what you shoot

 

Duclos blames the limitation on shutterbugs on the French Civil Code, which prevails in Quebec over common law, practiced elsewhere in North America. "The right to [one's own] image is an invention of French law," he says. "I made the film to show the stupidity of that notion."

 

But media lawyer Mark Bantey - another opponent of the photo restrictions - argues that a complaint made in another province would likely lead to the same restrictions applying there. "Right now it only applies to Quebec Civil Law, but I'm convinced that it will creep across the rest of Canada," he says. "I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, but I'm sure one day it will."

 

Nowadays, he says, people whose image appears in a paper without their permission - even when it's an image of a crowd shot or news report - are calling up media outlets to complain, asking for a payoff. "It has become a cottage industry," says Bantey.

 

Duclos doesn't see any immediate solution. The Supreme Court could overturn its own decision, but he doubts that will happen soon. "The danger is that it leads to self-censorship," he says. "If I can't publish my images, I'm not sure I still want to do photography. The decision goes against the whole tradition of photography."

 

I am looking forward to being in Paris for this Challenge - whilst a 'newbie' to Leica, having bought an M6 and 35mm Summicron in June - this is a City and area with which I am very familiar and this is a great idea - and excuse - to go back.

 

Mike.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[octo]

As Bill said, it's supposed to be fun. The rules are there. If you choose to participate and bend the rules to suit yourself, it's only you that's being cheated. If you can't post your best shot of the day without bending the rules, then it's probably best not to declare at all.

 

There is also the element of trust with digital shooters. No one goes and checks the file numbers before and after the shoot to see that no one has taken 41 shots...

 

I am quite happy with the rules as they stand. A little cropping just to "tidy edges" seems perfectly reasonable to me. Wholesale cropping to create a different shot isn't.

 

Quite true, Andy, and as Steve pointed out we did it mostly for the pleasure of putting a face behind people we had met only through the Forum. Anyway, I don't see it as a competition but for what it was meant to be: a challenge. BTW, I went to the pub a couple of weeks ago, sampled the beer, enjoyed the atmosphere: good choice, Steve!

I have been trying a brand new Elmar M 2.8/50 collapsible (originally made for the M6J) and it takes better pictures than me... Still have some time to decide on the lens till october.

See you all then.

[albertwang]

Mike,

 

Thanks for the heads up. I don't think that I will consider the montreal trip now that you told me that the photography rule is that absurd.

 

Okay, definitely a no go, I will be in either vancouver or toronto where less fanatical people are happy to be snapped at

 

Spasiba!

Alfie

[pascal_meheut]

In France, the law is very strict but there has been some changes. After years of very strict interpretation, court started to rule that there must be some real damage to someone private life or image to justify the action.

And a bill has been proposed by some representatives to release the rules but not introduced yet.

[ejd]

I hope to be in Paris on the 7th of October and join you all for the Challenge. Third time! Can't do worse than last year. (Null points.) I'll try to come emboldened by Chris Weeks' 'rant' on street photography (http://www.leica-camera-user.com/customer-forum/3585-nice-book-abaout-streetphotographie.html?highlight=street#post33249 or

Street Photography ... by +cweeks on deviantART ) and cock a snook at any absurd restrictions. Looking forward to it. John