[Johnny Au]

To clarify it depends on where you are when you take the picture. If you poke a camera lens through a fence to get a clearer picture, or cross unmarked border line, then it could be construed as taking the photo *on* private property and requires permission.

It is at least polite and respectful to ask to take someone's picture.

But all that said, I highly doubt Johnny did anything to get in trouble for. Developers are more worried about taking a picture of something that could get their permits pulled, etc. Unless they're protecting trade construction secrets, photos of construction are more often free marketing than anything else.

Besides, there's an awareness from the subjects and the photos almost look posed. Otherwise those workers knew and probably didn't care enough not to stop their photo from being taken. I don't take Johnny as the type to publish something someone objected to.

In one of the previous posts in this thread, a few months ago, a construction worker for The One asked why I was taking photos up close, especially the Yonge side photos. The construction worker even had security camera photos of me taking photos. He even brought me to a police officer. I told the construction worker and the police officer that I had been taking photos for UT. I was let go and permitted to continue taking more photos. I even told him that my photos are meant to be a compliment to appreciate all the hard work construction workers like him go through in constructing The One. All of the photos have been taken from public property and are viewable from public property.

This is why I continue posting photos taken using my iPhone 12 Pro Max to this thread. If I were told that I am prohibited from taking photos completely, I would cease taking photos of The One, but fortunately, I am permitted to take more photos of The One as long as I take them on public property.

 

[vinny_the_hack]

He even brought me to a police officer

I assume this was consensual. Even a police officer wouldn't have the right tp take you anywhere because you were taking photos from a public space. Furthermore, you were under no obligation to explain yourself, or indeed, to speak at all.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Anything (or anyone) you can see from public, you can photograph. There is no expectation of privacy in public.

Off-topically: If there are kids involved...I think you have to get permission from their legal guardians or something like that. So it's not as a free for all when it comes to being out and about in the public armed with a camera.

That said, unless peeps ask me to take pics with them in it, out of courtesy of their privacy and personal spaces, I'll try to avoid taking pics with them in it. Granted, that's not always easy on busy intersections.

 

[vinny_the_hack]

Off-topically: If there are kids involved...I think you have to get permission from their legal guardians or something like that. So it's not as a free for all when it comes to being out and about in the public armed with a camera.

That said, unless peeps ask me to take pics with them in it, out of courtesy of their privacy and personal spaces, I'll try to avoid taking pics with them in it. Granted, that's not always easy on busy intersections.

There are no separate laws concerning photography and minors (in public). If you want privacy in public, you have to create it.

Keep in mind that someone with a photographic memory essentially has a photo of anything he can see in public. A camera is as legal to use as one's eyes.

 

[Johnny Au]

Part 4 of 4 taken on August 16, 2023:

Yonge side:

From Yonge and College/Carlton:

Note that all of these photos are taken from public property.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

There are no separate laws concerning photography and minors (in public). If you want privacy in public, you have to create it.

Keep in mind that someone with a photographic memory essentially has a photo of anything he can see in public. A camera is as legal to use as one's eyes.

That's a terrible comparison...but okays. /shrug

 

[zang]

There are no separate laws concerning photography and minors (in public). If you want privacy in public, you have to create it.

Lest someone think you can do whatever you want with a camera from public land, precedent and intent will play a part. There’s no carte blanche “if I’m on public land, it’s 100% legal”.

Try using a telephoto lens to take pictures of military equipment on a CFB from a public road or shoot upskirts at the local market with a shoe camera, and very soon the police will be knocking at your door.

Keep in mind that someone with a photographic memory essentially has a photo of anything he can see in public. A camera is as legal to use as one's eyes.

Not quite. Human memory even at its best is still very stochastic, and the brain fills a whole lot of the gaps with guesses and assumptions that change and distort over time.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...dialing this all back to here though (and inB4 Mr 42 hits that "Enough!" button), I don't think Mr. Au (or anyone here taking pics for that fact) is doing anything illegal or problematic with their pokey cameras.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

Off-topically: If there are kids involved...I think you have to get permission from their legal guardians or something like that. So it's not as a free for all when it comes to being out and about in the public armed with a camera.

In some situations this is advisable, but legally speaking, you are wrong.

Consider this example: If you take a picture of Nathan Phillips Square, are you expected to then go speak to every parent of every child pictured? Absolutely not and nor should you be so required.

Public space is public space, children or no children.

 

[Map]

I don't mean to derail the thread or be especially hard on the poster but I think some of the photos in question were taken unnecessarily close to the workers who were on site, particularly when there are so few people around in the shots that it looks like it would be easy to avoid capturing them altogether.

I seem to be in the minority here and as others have pointed out legality is a totally separate issue. I'm certainly not suggesting the pictures were illegal, I just wonder if they were taken in poor taste. One poster mentioned there being no expectation of privacy in public settings such as Nathan Phillips Square. I agree and don't think any rational person would object to their picture being captured as part of a wide shot there. But a closeup from seemingly 5-10 feet when they're not in front of anything particularly interesting? I think that most people would view that as off-putting (there's even a good chance they thought they were the subject of the photos, not the construction materials in the background).

Another commenter mentioned that the workers almost looked like they were posing - I agree, but I'd submit they might look like that because they're aware their photo is being taken and are uncomfortable while it happens. Obviously I wasn't there and I could be totally wrong, but I'd probably have the same reaction in the circumstance. If the picture taker said they wanted to get a shot of whatever I was standing in front of, I'd probably move out of the way and give them a better shot.

Again, I wasn't there and don't know the circumstances. Maybe the poster communicated to the workers that they're interested in this construction site and was taking pictures of its development and offered the chance to step aside while they snapped a few quick pictures. That's fine, obviously. But I wonder if they just walked up and started taking pictures in a way that unintentionally made the workers feel uncomfortable. I probably wouldn't speak up here ordinarily (I have, what, 2 posts ever after about 5 years of following these forums?), but I wanted to support @khris here as I view their comment as totally reasonable.

Once again, my comments are based on the (possibly incorrect) assumption that the picture taker didn't communicate their intentions. I could be totally wrong and the workers were given the opportunity to get out of the way and wanted to be in the picture. If that were the case, then maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to post a quick note to that effect, sort of like how people will post a picture taken from a car and make sure to add that they were not driving.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

In some situations this is advisable, but legally speaking, you are wrong.

Consider this example: If you take a picture of Nathan Phillips Square, are you expected to then go speak to every parent of every child pictured? Absolutely not and nor should you be so required.

Public space is public space, children or no children.

I'm not sure you're speaking on your understanding how this legally works or speaking as a lawyer...

...that said and either way, what you said makes much more sense...so at least it does shine light onto something I've always thought was a bit dodgy on how I understood that. So I guess a thank you for that is least given here. /bows

Anywhoose...back to this tower! <3

 

[khris]

I don't mean to derail the thread or be especially hard on the poster but I think some of the photos in question were taken unnecessarily close to the workers who were on site, particularly when there are so few people around in the shots that it looks like it would be easy to avoid capturing them altogether.

I seem to be in the minority here and as others have pointed out legality is a totally separate issue. I'm certainly not suggesting the pictures were illegal, I just wonder if they were taken in poor taste. One poster mentioned there being no expectation of privacy in public settings such as Nathan Phillips Square. I agree and don't think any rational person would object to their picture being captured as part of a wide shot there. But a closeup from seemingly 5-10 feet when they're not in front of anything particularly interesting? I think that most people would view that as off-putting (there's even a good chance they thought they were the subject of the photos, not the construction materials in the background).

Another commenter mentioned that the workers almost looked like they were posing - I agree, but I'd submit they might look like that because they're aware their photo is being taken and are uncomfortable while it happens. Obviously I wasn't there and I could be totally wrong, but I'd probably have the same reaction in the circumstance. If the picture taker said they wanted to get a shot of whatever I was standing in front of, I'd probably move out of the way and give them a better shot.

Again, I wasn't there and don't know the circumstances. Maybe the poster communicated to the workers that they're interested in this construction site and was taking pictures of its development and offered the chance to step aside while they snapped a few quick pictures. That's fine, obviously. But I wonder if they just walked up and started taking pictures in a way that unintentionally made the workers feel uncomfortable. I probably wouldn't speak up here ordinarily (I have, what, 2 posts ever after about 5 years of following these forums?), but I wanted to support @khris here as I view their comment as totally reasonable.

Once again, my comments are based on the (possibly incorrect) assumption that the picture taker didn't communicate their intentions. I could be totally wrong and the workers were given the opportunity to get out of the way and wanted to be in the picture. If that were the case, then maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to post a quick note to that effect, sort of like how people will post a picture taken from a car and make sure to add that they were not driving.

Thank you for understanding my post. I was not implying anything about the photos being legal or not illegal, simply just respecting the people working there. Just because they can be seen from the public while working doesn't mean they need to be right up in their face and taking photos. The very least they could do is remove them from the photo by cropping or blurring their face. Documenting the construction of the building does not mean they need to take photos of the security guards just doing their jobs.

 

[Johnny Au]

Part 1 of 3 taken on August 20, 2023:

Bay and Cumberland:

Balmuto side:

Bloor side:

 

[Benito]

More cladding installed. Taken yesterday.

 

[Benito]

Today.