Street photography in Montreal
I know I have a nasty tendency to keep rambling on about photographer’s rights, but it’s something I find quite interesting. On one of my recent posts, a full 64% of you (that’s 238 people!) told me that people tried to stop you from taking photos. Of course, 35% of you stuck to your guns (and your rights) and continued to take photos anyway – that thread has a lot of interesting comments in it, too, so it’s worth having a peek.
If you’re in Quebec, however, things might just be a little bit different…
In fact, you’d be surprised how different the rules are:
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.
Sounds amazing? Well perhaps it is – it’s the law either way. One photographer in particular has felt the full force of the law, in the form of Gilbert Duclos (see his website here).
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.
Yikes. Read the full article in the Montreal Mirror!
I dunno if there’s many Canadians reading this (I know there’s one: Hi, Ashley!), but if you have any way of petitioning some sense into your government (we tried here in the UK…) about this issue, you might want give it a shot…
The photo at the top of this article is © Gilbert Duclos. For a bigger version, and to see more of his photographs, visit his website
My day job, if it can be called that, is being a writer. I've got one book out there so far and it's awesome, so go ahead and buy a copy! It's available from 
In front of you, five hyperactive men with guitars, drums, and microphones. Behind you, five thousand fans. In your hands, a camera... You're going to need more than just a little bit of good luck to pull this one off. That's where this book comes in.
Take a Canon EOS 450D. Attach a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. Hit the streets of London. See what happens.
Insights, suggestions and comments
I’m a a Canadian photographer too, in Vancouver though.
Thanks for the heads up on this :)
I guess I should be in jail. I lived in Montreal for about 6 years and what a great place to shoot. Grand Prix weekend is great. One year I couldn’t get tickets to the races so I went downtown and came up with this gallery.
If what you are saying is true then I should by rights remove my gallery.
Being Canadian as well I know the laws in Quebec are very different than the rest of Canada. I just left Montreal a few weeks ago but I am based out of Halifax.
Well the law in Europa (at least in Luxembourg) is comparable to that of Quebec, although I’ve never heard so far of anyone being actually pursued…
“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.”
Applies in the US for any image that will be displayed “commercially,” even in a museum if it charges admission. Exceptions are “public persons” who have no expectation of privacy in public due to fame. Model releases are required, or the photographer faces the possibility of a lawsuit.
This is civil law, not criminal, but it can end up costing you just as much in the long run.
Hello,
I live in Montreal and this has been the only time a photographed was sued. I would personally be careful about posting a photo where you can clearly see someone destinated to be published even if the law wasn’t there. Although the law is there and is sort of scary, no other accident has happened and Quebec isnt full of lawsuits like other countries are. My teacher also told me that the magazine’s subject was “depression” which is why the girl was laughed at, and at this point it is more a personal thing than a photography thing. If someone put my picture next to “suicide, anorexia, ugly” or anything like that, it wouldn’t make me too happy either.
When I was doing photography at College I was told that we SHOULD ask permission before taking photographs of people. It’s the same for filming people too.
Obviously that flys in the face of papparazzi photography, but that’s just not British! Perhaps I was fed a load of BS, or perhaps I just consider it ruse to stick a lens in someone’s face without asking… especially if you’re gonna make a profit from them. Celebrities are fair game though. Anyone who attracts publicity by self-promotion are fair enough.
In the context of the football player with no legs, if he was playing a match open to the public – fair enough. If he was playing behind closed doors with college chums then that’s surely exploitation?
Now, why this law sound stupid to you? To me, it is totally correct to ask a person if his image could be seen by millions. You don’t have to ask before. Just take the shots and if you can clearly see the person in the picture and your intentions are to put this picture in the public, after that run to the person, introduce yourself, and ask him permission.
Of course, Gilbert Duclos does not like that law because he had to pay.
Also, this law is pretty good against papparazzi. In Québec, there are no such things. (Well, they are, but the prearrange everything ;)
Tell Sheldon to save a spot for me in jail with all the street shots I’ve taken in my photographic life. I understand that taking pictures of people without their permission can be pushing it, and yes, courtesy in asking doth help. But here in the New York City area that line is often blurred with so many photographers and so many subjects.
IMHO, I feel if a person is in a public place or event they’ve waived their right to privacy. I know myself that I may end up on camera and that’s a chance I take going in public. I’ve been in public venues where in fact a sign is posted advising people that there’s a photographer/videographer recording and they understand that being there (and possibly recorded) they waive their right to privacy.
I’m not saying to do what happens often, which is to shoot a picture of someone and use it for commercial purposes (without permission). But if you capture a parade, concert, festival, or plain old street shot and display it, you should not be penalized. If the subject in the image complains, he/she should have stayed home.
I live in Montréal and to me it’s only natural to ask permissions before starting to shoot away. No sense to me if someone is on the street they become public property. That would validate, in its extreme form, rape or robbery and it would mean that you can’t go outside if you don’t want to be caught on a photographer’s “film”.
I entirely agree with Alexandre on this.
I have been told off once, and only once, for taking a street shot candid of someone, and really, I was just practicing panning shots – I was told by means of being given the finger. I deleted the shot. I think there are certain instances where asking is alright, and other times, you lose the freshness of the image if there’s a pause or an awareness of the subject and they perhaps decide to “pose” instead of just “do”.
From Ontario, Canada, BTW.
One case, ten years ago, girl on the cover of a magazine, tried before a small claims court judge — $2,000 paid (granted it was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada). Before we label Quebec a police state, consider:
1. The case stands for the proposition that people have some degree of control over the public use and exploitation of their image. Not so controversial, I wouldn’t think, especially in these days of extensive privacy legislation.
2. Would you submit a recognizable photo of an individual for a magazine cover shot without a model release? Would any right-thinking magazine accept it?
3. It is the publication of a subject’s photo that is controversial, not the taking of it. There is nothing exceptional in Quebec law that prohibits snapping the shutter.
4. So far as I know, there has not been an epidemic of anti-photographer legislation in Quebec in the decade since the case was tried.
Bottom line — weird case ten years ago; slow news week in Montreal; persecuted photographer (yes, in the end, the result was a bit ridiculous), add them up and you get the Mirror story.
EL
Moderator: sorry, but I meant to say “litigation” not “legislation” in point 4.
I have a friend who is an avid photographer who is coming to visit Montreal. I know he will want to break out the camera and do a tour of the city. Can anyone suggest really cool and interesting spots where I could take him? It would be much appreciated.
I’m a photojournalist in Montreal~ it is true what is written here. The key is to have release forms handy, and once the shot is taken, the subject signs it.
Ashlee Lynn
http://www.CanadianGirlPhotography.com
Share your wisdom