Photography Law

[Marko]

I'll likely be using myself as a guinea-pig really soon.

I'll let you know how it turns out....but I expect you to answer the phone when i get my one phone call.

[AcadieLibre]

Cool now you can show me this black and white law that can never be changed for it is written in stone somewhere lol. I am willing to accept an interpretation of whatever law you are referring to as a right, it will be Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada upholding whatever law you are referring to as a start. If it is a right it will be written as an opinion by the Majority of the Court with the majority siding with this law you refer too, and the decision by the court will state the law and give a definition of the courts interpretation of this law. Then we can discuss it from there. Nothing sweeping about anything I wrote, it is what it is. If you can show me a law that has not evolved nor been interpreted overtime by the courts differently I will buy your argument. Copyright laws change all the time, nothing set in stone at all. The only Rights you have are Constitutional ones, thats it, thats all and even at the best of times that also doesn't guarantee anything. Nothing more nor nothing less.

It is not even a discussion, they are called rights for a reason, I do not see photographing statues in a public place in our Charter of Rights, although a court or the sitting governments may choose to allow for those to be included in the interpretation of Your Rights, it is anything but a right but an interpretation that can be changed at will, be it a court leaning one way or the other or a sitting government willing to take that right away. If Parliament chooses to say that it is illegal to photograph a statue in public place, you know what? It is no longer a right unless the Supreme Court overturns it and nothing would stop them from rewriting the law and passing another one forcing the courts again to over turn it.

I can show you case after case where people thought they had rights only to have them taken away if even briefly. You cannot show me one right that any person has had thats has never been taken away at some point in time. I will even allow you to show me a right that people have had without quarrel for lets say 75 years, that has never been infringed upon, taken away etc. I am very easy to please, not even looking for a century of rights that people have that are written in black and white. Just one Right, not two, not three just one, and I will take the one you offered me or any will do.

[AcadieLibre]

.but I expect you to answer the phone when i get my one phone call.

Just a note, you have no right to that call, just have your lawyer call him lol.

[tegan]

Sorry, Acadie Libre but you are not making the least bit of sense to me.

Copyright and infringement is defined in law. It does not require the Supreme Court to define it. Trademark Law and trademark violation is defined in the legislation. It does not require the Supreme Court to define it either. The nature of copyright and trademark law is also governed by treaties with other countries and conventions that include most of the western world. It is not subject to any arbitrary interpretation that would be legal. The Trespass Act and violation is also defined quite precisely in the legislation. If you do not leave the property when asked you are trespassing. If you enter a property that is posted with NO trespassing signs, then you are trespassing. It is that simple. No interpretation necessary and absolutely no ambiguity. Why would anyone even consider the stupidity of having the Supreme Court rule on whether trespassing occured, unless there was a question of who owned the property, for example? Even that question however does not change the definition of trespassing.

The law in many of these areas is black and white. The only matter in question is whether it can be proved that you violated the laws as per the definitions of violation written into these laws.

On another level, if no law states that you cannot take photos on private property without permission, then obviously you can. If no law states that you cannot take photos of bridges, trains, and other elements of infrastructure, then obviously you can. If no law states that you cannot take photos of the police in ther performance of their duties, then obviously you can. This is NOT OPEN to any Supreme Court interpretation whatsoever.

What don't you understand about the above?

Tegan

[tegan]

I'll likely be using myself as a guinea-pig really soon.

I'll let you know how it turns out....but I expect you to answer the phone when i get my one phone call.

En français ou en anglais?

Tegan

[AcadieLibre]

A law/rights can be overturned by the courts or interpreted differently by the Government, The Courts or Legal Scholars. Any law is open to challenge, and a Right is open to challenge. How many laws have been overturned by the courts and how many have been upheld by them, so the final say on what a Law is a Court Decision. You ,I , Copyright Holder, or the Government can challenge the Constitutionality of any law or Right. Just because it is how you read the law does not make it the law. You make horrid legal errors, try and insist they are black and white, I want to to just show me one law that you quote as fact as being fact, not your word but that of even a Constitutional lawyer or make it any lawyer who will back up what you state as fact and will cover all my legal costs should they be wrong. Not going to happen, if you cannot see what role the Supreme courts is on the What a Right is or What a law is I can't explain that on a forum. A Court can either uphold or overturn a Law, as simple as I can spell it out.

This is the strongest explanation of your Rights that there are Online which I have linked to previously. And even this opinion states "Note that this is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer, this is simply my interpretation of the laws surrounding photography." http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php and I have read far stronger legal opinions than this from legal scholars and lawyers and not one legal scholar or lawyer will say that is it the law definitively or without doubt it is a right they will defend for free because they just know it is the law and your right, they only to say the same thing the web site states. Are you willing to cover my attorney costs should I incur any listening to your assured legal expertise? If so we can find out quick enough.

[Marko]

I think we should bring this down a notch or 2

..nobody here is a lawyer so all this is just opinion. Even when statements are strong, until they are Proven correct (or incorrect), they are just opinions. Legal issues are always debated anyway. They are debated before-after and during their legislation. There's no black and white here imo., no way. We are entitled to our opinions though, and can always agree to disagree on certain issues.

thx
Marko

[cdanddvdpublisher]

I think we should bring this down a notch or 2

..nobody here is a lawyer so all this is just opinion. Even when statements are strong, until they are Proven correct (or incorrect), they are just opinions. Legal issues are always debated anyway. They are debated before-after and during their legislation. There's no black and white here imo., no way. We are entitled to our opinions though, and can always agree to disagree on certain issues.

thx
Marko

*nods* definitely seems like the time to take a step back and a deep breath and unwind a bit.

[tegan]

There's no black and white here imo., no way. Marko

Different opinions result from different perspectives and some perspectives are more relevant than others. When you get directly involved in a very substantial law suit as I have been for the past 3 years, your view of the law will change. That is guaranteed.

There are indeed black and white areas.

Tegan

[AcadieLibre]

I am in the music business and I have spent time in courts over the years fighting copyright issues and have had to go to court several times to protect my work. It is a huge issue in my business. I have had to defend against frivilous accusations a few times, although I am in the right there has been a few times it has made it to court before a judge would rule in my favour. I also have had to take others to court to protect my copyrights which should have been black and white but until a judge would say I was in the right it was very grey.

I know an artist who spent 4 years fighting over a copyright issue where he lost the case but eventually won the appeal, it cost over $25,000 in legal fees and he got off cheap. Most lawyers want a $5,000 retainer just to start with and thats just to get it off the ground. That is for music copyright issues, images may be easier one way or the other to prove but I highly doubt it. It should have been black and white in his favour but the first judge read the law differently then the appelate judge. So what may appear black and white always isn't. Having had to deal with copyright law over 20 years and speak from more experience then I care to recall. It is just a very big part of my chosen proffession, I would love it to be black and white. And just because you are in the right does not mean you recover your legal costs, only twice have I ever recovered my legal costs.