Harry, Meghan warn Canadians off
Not Montreal, but this is a Canadian news piece and it’s rubbed me the wrong way. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have barely moved in when they start issuing orders, demanding nobody photograph them. “As yet, there is no information on what will happen if the warnings are not heeded,” says this piece.
You’re telling me they want to promote a business called Sussex Royal and make their own living, using their high profiles to flog whatever junk that’s going to be, but issue threats over what the Canadian media can do? No, we don’t need that.
Em 18:09 on 2020-01-21 Permalink
While not a legal expert, I’m pretty sure there’s no law against photographing them, since they’re newsworthy and, since they’re out in public, have no reasonable expectation of privacy. The laws may be different in Britain (I don’t know) and if so I guess their threat would only apply to UK media (who are actually the ones publishing these photos, Canadian outlets aren’t).
This article lays out when journalists can and can’t photograph: https://j-source.ca/article/can-you-take-a-picture-a-look-at-your-right-to-photograph-in-canada/
You can’t take a photo of a random person that has nothing to do with a news event and commercially publish it without their consent, however.
“According to a 1998 Supreme Court of Canada ruling, publishing a photo of a private individual may violate his or her privacy if the individual is not personally in the news and was not photographed as part of a crowd at a public event like a demonstration or sporting event. In that case the court awarded $2,000 in damages to a young woman who was photographed sitting on a doorstep and the photo used as an illustration of a story that had nothing to do with her personally.”
DuraLex 18:30 on 2020-01-21 Permalink
This is a Wikipedia entry on the case, known as Aubry v. Vice-Versa.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubry_v_%C3%89ditions_Vice-Versa_Inc
Spi 18:48 on 2020-01-21 Permalink
It’s easy to be high and judgemental of public figures who have chosen to walk away from the spotlight when you’re not the one with photographers pointing telephoto lenses at the windows of your house.
It’s one thing to be photographed by passerby’s and other residents, it’s another thing to have paparazzi hiding in the bushes and profiting from your image.
Blork 19:09 on 2020-01-21 Permalink
Aubry v. Vice-Versa is the case that pretty much killed street photography in Canada.
That said, I sympathize with Mr. Windsor on this one, give the history with his mother and all. But I hate that street photography and paparazzi are lumped together in this context.
JoeNotCharles 19:33 on 2020-01-21 Permalink
Absolutely justified.
Here’s an arresting visual guide to how much bullshit Meghan Markle put up with from the media: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
And a more academic piece about the racism involved: https://www.vox.com/first-person/2020/1/17/21070351/meghan-markle-prince-harry-leaving-royal-family-uk-racism
Kevin 19:46 on 2020-01-21 Permalink
They’re telling the British media vultures, the assholes that hacked Harry’s phone and continually badmouth Meghan with racist articles, to fuck off.
They aren’t threatening Canadian media.
Kate 19:51 on 2020-01-21 Permalink
Kevin, you’re not telling me no Canadian photographer would want to make a few thousand bucks by selling photos to a Murdoch paper?
The UK has different laws from ours. The royal escapees may have to learn the hard way that they’re not in a cosy bubble of UK law if they’re actually living in Canada.
(I’d be willing to bet they’ll be living in California by the end of the year, and good riddance. We don’t need the diplomatic problem.)
Douglas 20:45 on 2020-01-21 Permalink
Hopefully they will just disappear to LA where they belong and leave us Canadians alone.
Kate 21:26 on 2020-01-21 Permalink
All I was saying is that I did not like the tone of Harry trying to lay down the law when he’s pretty much been given refuge in Canada.
JaneyB 00:02 on 2020-01-22 Permalink
@JoeNotCharles – thanks for those links. I have never followed the royals and I had no idea how weirdly she’d been treated. No wonder they want to get out. The Murdoch empire is a scourge on humanity. I hope we have laws to protect people from that kind of invasive chronicling, no matter how posh they are. At least they won’t have to see the headlines on news stands everywhere they walk.
Kevin 08:55 on 2020-01-22 Permalink
Kate,
Any photographer working in Canada should know the laws in their jurisdiction.
Publishing those photos would have been illegal here in Quebec.
In several other provinces, including BC, people can sue for breaches of privacy, and these photos likely qualify.
The photos were published in the UK, and the media groups in the UK got a lawyer’s letter.
John B 10:03 on 2020-01-22 Permalink
My understanding of Aubry vs. Vice-Versa is that it was Quebec’s Droit de l’image laws that made it so she won – and so street photography and paparazzi is essentially illegal in Quebec. The rest of Canada has laws closer to the USA or UK, although there are some privacy laws that haven’t been challenged in court yet so we won’t know how they would be interpreted.
Kate 10:15 on 2020-01-22 Permalink
Aubry vs. Vice-Versa has also not yet been challenged in the era of Instagram and Snapchat.
Kevin, that’s as may be. My point is, they seem to want their cake and eat it too. Benefit from their fame and notoriety to launch a brand, but have everyone keep away when they say so. If I see a single Canadian prosecuted because Harry says so…
John B: That’s ironic, that Harry and Meghan would be better protected legally here in Quebec, and probably ignored more also. But you’ll notice they’re not installing themselves in St-Sauveur.
Chris 10:55 on 2020-01-22 Permalink
and CCTV, and dashcams, and smartphones, and Google Glass, etc., etc.
Blork 11:03 on 2020-01-22 Permalink
And the web in general. The Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa case was decided in 1998, but the event that sparked it was from 1987, long before the web was a thing, and back when the concept of “publishing” was very different than it is now.
Kevin 14:52 on 2020-01-22 Permalink
Kate
I believe they’ve trademarked their identity, so not only are they allowed their privacy, they’re probably required to enforce their privacy with legal letters. They’re living brands and have to treat their image the same way Tim Hortons does.
They’re not the first celebs to do this, and they certainly won’t be the last.
GC 22:11 on 2020-01-22 Permalink
It doesn’t seem like they moved on a whim, so I assume they did a bit of discreet research on both privacy and tax laws before they picked a destination. They shouldn’t go about making vague threats that go beyond existing privacy laws, but that Global story is very ambiguous about what was actually said. The article seems very poorly written from that perspective. A stern warning. Presumably they didn’t literally say “we’re issuing a stern warning”, so what did they say? If there was a press release, why not quote from that?
Also, taking photos of someone walking through a public park vs. aiming a camera into the windows of their residence are two very different things and shouldn’t be lumped together.
JP 22:08 on 2020-03-27 Permalink
@Kate RE “I’d be willing to bet they’ll be living in California by the end of the year, and good riddance. We don’t need the diplomatic problem.”
You called it Kate. They’re in LA now. https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-and-prince-harry-have-left-canada-and-are-now-settled-in-the-l-a-area/
It didn’t even take until the end of the year!