Toronto Photography Meetup Group

he coulda been on a break when he took these photos yano and I think any legal challenge would probably be short lived

The owner of the Zanzibar is my first cousin. Neat eh? (no I don't work there, and no, I can't get u in for free)

(side note: I think those photos are kinda interesting. If they were in the Bulger Gallery people would pay big bucks for them).

That's how I got some of my high vantage point G20 protest photos

but they got signs saying photography isn't allowed, right?

Immaterial if you're told to stop, by an employee.

Whatsyerpoint?

just trying to figure out if photography is completely banned on private property...as it seemed from the comments. I can't possibly know it's banned unless I see signs or someone tells me to stop and shows a legal document that bans it

From The Star:

[quote]"Many workers try to keep their jobs secret from friends and family, Anderson added.

She said two of her co-workers quit their jobs and left in tears on Thursday morning, after the photos appeared online and in print. Another of her colleagues is a Ryerson student, she said.

Property management can set whatever rules that they want. In places where photography is definitely prohibited, it is obviously stated at the point of entry or told to you if you're a new employee.

If you have no reason to be on that property, then you really shouldn't be there to begin with IMO. Of course I have wandered through Ryerson in the past and took pictures, and I damn well knew that there was no reason for me to be there taking pics of empty classrooms, etc.

I could never not photograph when in libraries, and I'm not talking about photographing people.

For instance when using the computer to look up items I'll photograph many Dewey numbers at a time, rather than memorizing one number, getting the book, then going back to the computer and memorizing a second number, etc., or writing down the numbers.

Or when I'm looking through the books and I see one that interests me but I don't want to take it out that moment I'll photograph the cover so I have the title and author for later.

It's photocopying rather than photographing...as well I have the camera in museum/silent mode so the camera won't beep or make noise, and the flash won't fire accidentally.

So does anyone think that these people on rooftops in a high rise environment like this aren't visible to someone somewhere?

If every little faction in this country gets to have whatever they feel is their right for whatever, its going to be virtually impossible to live here, as everyone will be invading someones rights, somewhere somehow.

Oh wait...I am using something clearly un Canadian here,,,,,,,common sense.

so strippers of zanibar are a "faction"?

The library isn't the point. It's the parent organization's rules that count. As someone else stated, it's like a mall. A privately owned space that the public is allowed to walk into. If a security guard asks you to stop photographing in a mall, you have to stop. He does not need to show you documentation of a rule. He's enforcing the wishes of that property's management. It's their space so they can decide. End of story. They also can't threaten you or ask to see the pictures.

It's up to Ryerson to decide on a policy. From what I've read on the whole incident Ryerson doesn't have a problem with their employees taking photographs so there's really nothing to discuss.

On the ethical side of things I have to agree with holly. This person obviously didn't consider the consequences for the subjects of his photography. Some people's lives have been turned upside down. I like those candid shots of hard working people on their smoke breaks taking a moment out. Perhaps this is what he had in mind with no disrespect intended, and I don't think it was illegal. But it shows bad judgment.

devil's advocate...

I'm presuming some of the women are working in a place they'd probably rather not. What would they do if they saw a friend/relative/co-worker/ fellow student in the front row ?

People need to do what they can to make a living so no judgement from me on that but if they're putting themselves on show, then seeing themselves online is just an extension of that, although with a much, much wider reach.

/

This is old news and has been known for some time so I'm really surprised mgt hasn't warned it's employees that it's a 'use at your own risk' space. so to speak.

If the world was more equitable (look up Christopher Hitchen's comments about ending poverty) , women wouldn't have to work in places where they might feel some shame.

WTF is this suppose to mean?

It is something clearly lacking these days.

Common sense should have been enough for anyone on a rooftop in a city to realize they are in view of others.

Hey you work in that type of industry you have to consider the worse case scenario of somebody finding out if you need to keep it hush hush.

What is common sense to you doesn't mean it should be common sense for others, never assume that. Never assume anything, in this case, that they had privacy in the rooftop.

We're beating a dead horse now I think.

At the end of the day, you have to decide what your ethics are as a photographer. Should the strippers have known they could have been seen? (yeah I think so) Should the torontoist have published the pictures? (Probably not) Never mind that.

You and only you can decide on what to shoot and why. You make the decision and live with the consequences. You can't control what life choices other people make, you can only control yourself. Brian Cameron is responsible for his photos, not his subjects.

So does that also apply if you are in your backyard and the neighborhood creep shoots photos of you are your kids outside nude/topless/whatever?

The point your arguing from is sketchy at best because they thought they were in a private space and they are entitled to walk around butt naked if they wish and have their 'rights' respected.

I don't what to make of the photographer either, doesn't he have anything better to do AT WORK?

So does that also apply if you are in your backyard and the neighborhood creep shoots photos of you are your kids outside nude/topless/whatever?

The point your arguing from is sketchy at best because they thought they were in a private space and they are entitled to walk around butt naked if they wish and have their 'rights' respected.

I don't know what to make of the photographer either, doesn't he have anything better to do AT WORK?

x2 post

"Entitled".......thats the whole crux of the issue right there.....everyone thinks they are entitled to whatever they want these days.

You have to be responsible for your own actions...its that simple.....don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

seems like a favorite past time for some of us

Before grinding the said horse into sausages have a look at this pages, they provide some information right from the horses mouth:

http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php
http://www.advertisinglawyer.ca/news-mag-1998-08.htm

I never used the word entitled so don't go jamming that in there. People are entitled to privacy, no matter what you think about their pastimes/employment.

And as for doing the time and crime, for the photographer, I agree with that statement 100%.

interesting. But what if....what if....

Mr. Ryerson Employee is taking photos of Ryerson women? From his Ryerson office? Would controversy, and Ryerson's comments and actions, be the same? My opinion is that he would be hounded, ambushed by media, attempt heartfelt explanation, followed by either Ryerson inquiry with disciplinary action or his own resignation into oblivion.


For the record, my opinion is that no privacy existed here. The trangression is wholly modern phenomenon: immediate sharing via publication on various sites. Because we can does not make it either legal, moral, acceptable, nor absolve culpability.

Let's be realistic here. Ryerson will most likely handle each situation differently if there are complaints. Of course if you're going to be walking around Ryerson as a Ryerson male employee taking photos of other female employees behind their back, what do you think is going to happen?

As soon as there is a complaint from that employee about her photos being taken it'll be a form of harassment that the guy and he'll be dealt with accordingly.

Seriously this isn't any different in most if not all workplace. You just don't go doing that.

Stick a fork in it. This topic is DONE.