Creepy furry "filmographers"

[squashNstretch]

I don't think you're going to see any convention start requiring people to get permission and releases from anyone in any picture they took for any purpose. A lot of people take pictures to remember and share the event, and my opinion (and, I'd be willing to bet, the prevailing opinion) is that that should be allowed. I also think most of the people who don't attend are just shy in general and aren't specifically freaked out by the possibility of ending up in pictures, but of course I'm speculating as much as you are.

And, as Mikomi says, it's perfectly legal. If you really want to guarantee you don't end up in anyone's pictures, your only real remedy is not to come. Even rules wouldn't stop everyone.

No, I don't think everyone is going to go around getting releases signed, but if they are intending on publishing them (News, article, blog, whatever) then getting a release signed is a good idea. It's not necessary, but it is to protect the photographer not the one who's photograph is being taken. If the pictures are published without permission, that opens the photographer up to being sued. How would the court rule? Who knows, it depends on a lot of things. A release is just a safety net. On the other hand if the event specified no photography then a photographer would really need to watch his step. A quick google turned up this:

Criminal Code of Canada, 162. (1): ("Criminal Voyeurism")
Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes – including by mechanical or electronic means – or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy

Saying all this, I understand that this is one of those things that people will want to take photographs of, and if you are worried someone might see you and that bugs you... Going to one of these things is a bad idea. There is a good chance I would bump into someone I know from outside of the random at one of these things so having my face on some random persons blog would be the least of my worries :)

[Pat The Fox]

There are two issues at hand here that were brought up both by the starting post and those within the thread. Both of these are very much opposing of each other:

1) People record things that have a variety of people in it, some of which who may not wish to be recorded

2) People want others to post everything they record at events else they become suspicious of why it is being recorded

As you can see, we have an impasse here.

If someone is going to record and publish, we are saying they should get permission of everyone in the shot. Given this is probably feasibly impossible at times, it is rather unfair to have the notion that if you record you should be posting your media publicly and be suspicious of those who do not.

[Mikomi]

No, I don't think everyone is going to go around getting releases signed, but if they are intending on publishing them (News, article, blog, whatever) then getting a release signed is a good idea. It's not necessary, but it is to protect the photographer not the one who's photograph is being taken. If the pictures are published without permission, that opens the photographer up to being sued. How would the court rule? Who knows, it depends on a lot of things. A release is just a safety net. On the other hand if the event specified no photography then a photographer would really need to watch his step. A quick google turned up this:

Criminal Code of Canada, 162. (1): ("Criminal Voyeurism")
Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes – including by mechanical or electronic means – or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy

Saying all this, I understand that this is one of those things that people will want to take photographs of, and if you are worried someone might see you and that bugs you... Going to one of these things is a bad idea. There is a good chance I would bump into someone I know from outside of the random at one of these things so having my face on some random persons blog would be the least of my worries :)

They cant sue you if it was taken in a public place unless said person was making money off the photo., "Criminal Voyeurism" Is not what where talking about here. "makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy" A reasonable expectation of privacy would not apply to someone taking a photo of another person in a public space.


Photographers Rights in Canada Do's and Don'ts

Things you cannot do:

Misrepresent someone in a slanderous way through photography or captions accompanying photographs.

Photograph people in their homes, or in spaces where they have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy,' such as public bathrooms.
Trespass, especially at night.

Take photos "that could be considered national secrets, interfere with a large number of Canadian's lives, impair or threaten the Canadian Forces, national security or intelligence."

Things you can do:

Take photos for non-commercial use in nearly any public space.

Photograph and publish photos of anyone, aside from young offenders, who are "newsworthy, doing newsworthy things, or are public figures or celebrities."

"It is not against copyright law to take a photo of any architectural work, for example, a building, or a permanent piece of public art."

[FurryJackman]

People could be using the footage for learning purposes, so they can get better at their art form, and learn how to use their camera better?  Or maybe they just have full time jobs and havent had time to think about the images they have captured.

There are two issues at hand here that were brought up both by the starting post and those within the thread. Both of these are very much opposing of each other:

1) People record things that have a variety of people in it, some of which who may not wish to be recorded

2) People want others to post everything they record at events else they become suspicious of why it is being recorded

As you can see, we have an impasse here.

If someone is going to record and publish, we are saying they should get permission of everyone in the shot. Given this is probably feasibly impossible at times, it is rather unfair to have the notion that if you record you should be posting your media publicly and be suspicious of those who do not.

These are the two big quotes to look at in my honest opinion. And even if the people stopped, they still have an obligation to post what they have, which still conflicts with the privacy aspect.

[mediar]

Is it legal to photograph/video someone on public property with or without their permission? Yes. However photo/videographers really should act decent and get the approval from the people that want to shoot. Common curtsy is something that everyone should adhere to.

[Whitefoot]

So the concern here (as I understand it) is that photos/video taken at public furry events might possibly, at some point in the future be used for blackmail and/or libel. I find that more than a little farfetched. And what the heck are we doing at these events that we want to be so secretive about it? We're not Furries Anonymous, for crying out loud. If you choose to hang out with fursuiters, or cosplayers, or street performers, or flamboyant cross-dressers, you run the risk of ending up on film with them. It kinda goes with the territory.

It should be noted that the big monthly meets have excellent guidelines for how you should behave. Let's take a look at bowling:

Whatever you wear has to be suitable for the general public. Also your action/language should also be suitable for the general public.

or the monthly dinnermeets:

Behave in a manner fitting being out in a public restaurant.

or the recent Mount Seymour adventure:

Remember this is a public area and around young children, your behaviour and language as well as your costume/clothing MUST be suitable for the general public!

By attending any of these events, fursuiting/tail-wearing or not, you've agreed to be seen with people who are obviously furries. It doesn't take a camera to remember a person's face. I think most people can put two and two together if they see you at Rev's going in and out of the same room the fursuiters are using. So again, what's going on at these events that you don't want on film?

[zenia]

what's going on at these events that you don't want on film?

I can only speak for myself... I don't do anything wrong (well, I mean, I wouldn't should I go to a meet)... however, I am a huge fatass and I don't turn up on film well. It embarrasses the hell out of me to see myself in pictures/videos. When I look better, then it wouldn't be such a problem. I have a huge fear of people looking at me and making fun of and judging me.

[squashNstretch]

A reasonable expectation of privacy would not apply to someone taking a photo of another person in a public space.

And that's the crux of it. If it is a private event that specifies no photography, you can totally be sued. Check out how a more established subculture handles photography at their events: http://www.noirvancouver.com/photo-rules/. I think it all comes down to what ground rules the event organizers state upfront. Is it a public event or a private one? Is there a private area? Does it say no photographs without permission? The Vancoufur website doesn't say anything about it so you could reasonably assume photography is fair game at this one. I've never been to a furcon so I don't know if that's par for the course or not.

[Mikomi]

And that's the crux of it. If it is a private event that specifies no photography, you can totally be sued. Check out how a more established subculture handles photography at their events: http://www.noirvancouver.com/photo-rules/. I think it all comes down to what ground rules the event organizers state upfront. Is it a public event or a private one? Is there a private area? Does it say no photographs without permission? The Vancoufur website doesn't say anything about it so you could reasonably assume photography is fair game at this one. I've never been to a furcon so I don't know if that's par for the course or not.

You cant be sued, thats just silly, but your could be removed from the premise. Also it is not up to the event co-ordinator to set those rules in most settings. Like a bowling ally, restaurant, mall. Its up to the owner of the property, security for the property, or someone on the owners behalf. If it is at someones home, then they are the owners. But they still cant sue you. They can tell you to leave, and delete the images. However if it was at a house party per say, and there was no sign or verbal warning, it is assumed photography is allowed.

Most cons dont disallow photography because people go and want to take images for there memories. Its like going to disney land, and for them to say no photography. It makes no sense.

I do understand that self-consciousness is an issue as well, But I would like to think people have better things to do then to take pictures fo the sole purpose of laughing at someone later. But if that is the case, its more likely to be done walking along the street, or at wal mart. then at a fur meet with people who are gathering to have a good time with each other.

[Silvermink]

And that's the crux of it. If it is a private event that specifies no photography, you can totally be sued. Check out how a more established subculture handles photography at their events: http://www.noirvancouver.com/photo-rules/. I think it all comes down to what ground rules the event organizers state upfront. Is it a public event or a private one? Is there a private area? Does it say no photographs without permission? The Vancoufur website doesn't say anything about it so you could reasonably assume photography is fair game at this one. I've never been to a furcon so I don't know if that's par for the course or not.

I daresay their events are probably pretty different from ours, so I'm not sure it's a fair comparison.

In any case, I've never been to a furry convention that specified any particular rules around photography for anyone but media, and I've been going to these things for a long time.

[Tef]

One of the few times that I would be concerned is if there's this "exterior" photographer that breaches himself or herself into the headless lounge...

[squashNstretch]

You cant be sued, thats just silly..

Not so silly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubry_v._%C3%89ditions_Vice-Versa_inc.

Its up to the owner of the property, security for the property, or someone on the owners behalf. If it is at someones home, then they are the owners. But they still cant sue you. They can tell you to leave, and delete the images. However if it was at a house party per say, and there was no sign or verbal warning, it is assumed photography is allowed.

If the organizers that are renting the venue state no photography, then the attendees will have an expectation of privacy. It's a moot point because the organizers appear to welcome photographers. If on the other hand they stated "no photographs" and someone was taking photo's of people then they open themselves up to legal action. The funny thing is, the organizers can ask the photographer to delete the images, but they are not  obligated to. The subjects can sue for damages (if they apply), but that's about it.

I daresay their events are probably pretty different from ours, so I'm not sure it's a fair comparison.

Haha, I would imagine so. That doesn't mean the laws apply any differently in practice.

[Mikomi]

Not so silly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubry_v._%C3%89ditions_Vice-Versa_inc.

If the organizers that are renting the venue state no photography, then the attendees will have an expectation of privacy. It's a moot point because the organizers appear to welcome photographers. If on the other hand they stated "no photographs" and someone was taking photo's of people then they open themselves up to legal action. The funny thing is, the organizers can ask the photographer to delete the images, but they are not  obligated to. The subjects can sue for damages (if they apply), but that's about it.

Haha, I would imagine so. That doesn't mean the laws apply any differently in practice.

It is silly because you cant be sued for taking the picture and having it for personal use. You CAN be sued for making money from that image how ever. (as your wiki article stated)

Also let it be known the owners can ask you to delete the images, you do not have to however. No one can ask you to destroy your property. Intellectual or otherwise


As for you second point, again legal action can not be taken even if the owner (who by law is the only one who can take action on the matter.) Disallows photography. You can only be sued if you made money from there image.



Well yes they do apply different because that event you linked to has clearly set out its expectations for entry. And it is alo a much different environment to a fur meet. You're comparing apples and oranges. Also if you read the link to that event you posted. The worst the venue can do to you is remove you and ASK to delete the images. If you keep the images and make profit from them, you can then be sued.

Now we have gone in the same circle a few times do you get it? If you dont there is a whole website dedicated to this kind of thing >>>> http://ambientlight.ca/laws/
That should clear up the "legal" Portion of this debate.

With all of this said, again I personally do and encourage others, if you are asked politely to remove an image of someone or stop recording them. Either try your best to avoid getting them in the frame, or show them that they where not in the frame to begin with if thats the case.

[Tony Greyfox]

When I was shooting for newspapers, the general policy was that if it was an event that the public was invited to and free for anyone to attend, it was fair game for photography and publishing of said photography because there's little in the way of expectation of privacy. Specific events where admission is required were different: we'd have to get permission to be there. Generally at that point it becomes the event holder's responsibility to ensure that people knew the media might be there and to either avoid the camera or ask politely not to be photographed. In the ten years or so I shot for newspapers, we did not use photo releases; we had to deal with them at places like schools, where occasionally parents didn't want their kids in any media shots and would lodge a no-photos request with the office. If someone asked me not to use their picture at any time, I would gladly not do so.

(Just for the record, grabbing someone's camera and shoving it aside if they're shooting is not considered polite. Some people, surprisingly, do need to learn this. =P )

For an event like a con, a media policy is absolutely necessary, and that should probably include something pertaining to photography. I don't know how it's done elsewhere, but it might be worth researching.

[KodaOtter]

Myself Im a Photographer. I have been taking pictures for Years from ALL over the world. and it is very hurtful to have to read through all your posts. yes there are many Good Concerns and Many Bad Ones that make no sense and nothing but a catch 22 of the yes and no I can do this i cant do this.

((((I Know my laws about my photo's and I will continue to take pictures until the day I die. I Have Sued people for touching my camera and forcefully pushing me. Dont think for a moment I will take an attack on my person and Just shrug it off. )))) <---- This is not an attack on anyone. its just what HAS happened to me in the Past. and that was back in the day of my 35mm

Ok that was a bit of a yell, Now for the nice part, even thou I can openly and publicly take photos of anything I want. I dont, I take photos and try to do an artistic view that is both Pleasing and Kind to the one that is being shot. I have always asked for Permmission and I will ALLWAYS continue to ask if I may take your picture. Think of it this way. I may ask you in the middle of the day to take your photo. thou with my memory I will forget by that night. and if I come around again. and see that you or the person(s) are in a Natural Pose that is what I see as Artistic. I will come up to person(s) and ASK again if I may.

I used to have my own site years ago where I would post all my photos (take in note these are not FURRIES but Human) and every Picture that was on that site was taken in a Public place Free to Photograph at will. but all subject KNEW of said photos.

Well hat site is long gone now and that DATA is now Stored on a Drive within my Private Server, Along with Countless Thousands of photos and articles (think of it as a Time Capsule "that in more then not cases will never be seen again and Just rush and begone)

OK now Under my rights as a Photographer. all my photos are Free and set to public eye with Contract Law that they can be used by ANYone as Long as said photo is of Stock and to not be sold or used in a manner of Profit.

You are free:
* to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
* to Remix — to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:
* Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of this work.
* Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
* The author's moral rights are retained in this licence.

----------------------------------------

ok I think I have ranted a little to much here. the bottom line that I want to stat is this.

as a photographer. I respect the subject that I am taking a Photo of. and I will always ask first to get the Rights to Pose them so that I may have a Record of stock to publish. If I am asked not to or (Please dont take my picture) I will make sure that I NEVER get you in my shots. and if by mistake I do. (as I review all photos AS they are taken "this is on the Random case you HAPPEN to walk into the shot in the background and I can Clearly see you or see the FACE of someone) I will DELETE that said photo and do another of the subject im trying to Capture.

Oh I noticed something as well as I was reading this topic... there are a few Furs that take video and pictures that were named (good people too ^.^ love there stuff) but I was not mentioned at all. Grated I dont have the BIG cams but I get my photos up in a timely mannor or people. so I do hope this is not a Knock on me, as I would be greatly hurt.

Now if someone does have a problem with me. Please I want to respect your wishes, and I want to hear from you. I personally know of 3 persons that dont want photos taken of them, and I respect that and have allways watched out to make sure that I keep there wishes  as I respect them and enjoy their friendship..

Ok, as to a NO Photo/video/media Block at a con. I dont see that EVER happening. Atleast to the Photo and video part. yes I like the idea of no media allowed. as they seem to twist things baddly. but to block/black out Photo and video from a con. would be Just wrong as how would anyone know what the con was about. how would we show people we are having fun (yes there is word to word) but... ("how I found out about the fandom thou I was a fur long before that. was from seeing a video taken from within a Con itself. and I was Like WOW now thats is cool. I so want to go to one of them") and that is what go me into searching out the fandom via the net. as I never knew it was even there.

So what are we going to do here? are we going to black out the memories that we enjoyed or try and reach an even playing ground for this? if you think about it. Grapher(s) and cons or events or what have you go paw in paw. and its not just Furry fandom its everything.
ground point is if you dont want your photo take. talk to the grapher. they are human too and love to talk and are MORE then happy to say. "ok no worries my friend :)"