Rights Question

[Travis]

Just curious for Canada -

If I take a picture of a structure from a sidewalk I believe I can sell this photo without restriction?

BUT....

What happens if I'm on the property of the structure?

I have no particular example to offer... so let's say I walk on the property of a church and take pictures of it.... do I have the same rights to sell without restriction?

[tegan]

Just curious for Canada -

If I take a picture of a structure from a sidewalk I believe I can sell this photo without restriction?

BUT....

What happens if I'm on the property of the structure?

I have no particular example to offer... so let's say I walk on the property of a church and take pictures of it.... do I have the same rights to sell without restriction?

Yes, you do. The only exception would be an out-of-context use such as a photo of a Catholic Church on an Anglican booklet, etc.

Tegan

[Travis]

Yes, you do. The only exception would be an out-of-context use such as a photo of a Catholic Church on an Anglican booklet, etc.

Tegan

hmmm... okay... would the "out of context" thing still apply if I took the picture from the sidewalk?

[tegan]

hmmm... okay... would the "out of context" thing still apply if I took the picture from the sidewalk?

It would still apply but let me backtrack. The problem with "out of context" use is that it could be construed as libel. Using a photo of a Catholic Church in an Anglican booklet could be considered as suggesting that the Catholic congregation is in fact Anglican. If someone objects, it can lead to a law suit.

A tv station I worked for bought the "rushes" or outakes from another station of a crowd going into a building. The video segments were taken in a public place so they were legal and so was their purchase. The station however edited them into the beginning of a striptease show. One of the crowd that the camera person had centered on was a prominent socialite who was not happy. She sued the station for defamming her reputation in the community and won, despite the fact that shooting the footage or selling it was not illegal.

It should be noted that any problem may not be that of the photographer but rather the purchaser and user of the photo or video. It depends on the individual situation.

Tegan

[AcadieLibre]

It would have to be a blatant act and they would have to show damages. Not sure what the Damage would be if you called a Catholic Church an Anglican one, God may strike you down as a Heretic but besides that really nothing to worry about lol ( I am Just kidding so no one get all bent over it). All day yesterday people were getting the Cathedrals mixed up and sure many who took photos were telling their friends and others that is was a church that it wasn't and probably one or two photographers are going to sell them marked wrong. If you can see it you can photograph it and call it your own, some minor exceptions are Military, Prisons etc.

[tegan]

It would have to be a blatant act and they would have to show damages. Not sure what the Damage would be if you called a Catholic Church an Anglican one, God may strike you down as a Heretic but besides that really nothing to worry about lol ( I am Just kidding so no one get all bent over it). All day yesterday people were getting the Cathedrals mixed up and sure many who took photos were telling their friends and others that is was a church that it wasn't and probably one or two photographers are going to sell them marked wrong. If you can see it you can photograph it and call it your own, some minor exceptions are Military, Prisons etc.

You are wrong about a blatant act. Law suits tend to come from blatant stupidity. To use an example, an educator on a national television network told the interviewer that he used Walt Disney videos to entertain the kids while the teachers were on strike. The board settled out of court for $60,000.

Tegan