can of worms: Phil 101 ethics paper

I decided to research the specific laws regarding taking pictures of people in public spaces, and discovered that since the last time I had investigated the matter, a ruling I had thought still stood had been overturned in the Supreme Court of Canada. The case, originating from a resident in the Province of Quebec who successfully sued a freelance photographer for selling an image of her sitting on the steps of a public building, is the first time in Canadian history were a person's right to freedom of artistic expression in that context had ever been deemed an invasion of privacy. In 2004, the photographer and magazine were ordered jointly to pay damages in the amount of $2000.

Outside of criminal law, which covers things like voyeurism, trespassing, libelous and slanderous images, etc., under the Canadian Charter of Rights we are guaranteed freedom of expression and consequently the right to take pictures of whomever and whatever we choose in public places. We also have the right to privacy. Although it would be unreasonable to have a law barring people from taking pictures in public places and/or posting them on 'personal' sites, both Quebec and Saskatchewan have laws in place protecting an individual's right to their image when there is money exchanged for that image. It does not bar people from taking pictures for personal use, and makes provisions for a) things that are 'newsworthy' and b) celebrities and other public figures.

I have decided to do my position paper on the ethical responsibility of photographers in the Province of Alberta to obtain legal permission to sell images of identifiable people taken in public spaces. As it's a short paper, I'm limiting it to this particular very small section of the law, but obviously this opens the door to a whole pile of other questions. I'd like to pose a few questions and see how you guys feel about this particular law. If you want to get more familiar with Canadian Privacy Laws, this link is awesome.

Again, to keep the topic kind of reigned in, let's assume someone has taken identifiable pictures of you and your family at a parade without your knowledge. The questions for your consideration in this Can of Worms are:

Does it bother you that anyone can take your picture and post them on Facebook or their blog or anywhere they want? Why?

Does it make a difference if the person knows you or not? Why?

Does it make a difference to you if it's a 'good' picture vs a 'bad' picture of you? (be honest)

If a freelance photographer sold a 'good' picture of you to appear in advertising for the parade without your knowledge or consent would you be upset? Why?

Would it make a difference if the person was a friend or acquaintance? Why?