In the US at least, photography on public property does not require the permission of the subject, otherwise photography in crowded tourist spots would be well

In the US at least, photography on public property does not require the permission of the subject, otherwise photography in crowded tourist spots would be well nigh impossible. There are of course exceptions, such as when the subject expects privacy (even in public, upskirts are no good), when you are making a profit from your photographs (which will then require model releases), or when "national security" is involved. (ref http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm ) In the UK it is approximately the same, with the addition that the subject may not be harassed (defined as behavior that causes alarm or distress over multiple incidents) (ref http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/ http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v... ) I've found the relevant laws regarding photography in Canada (http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php), and it seems to follow the US and UK in general. Therefore I think there are unspecified extenuating circumstances in the case of the photographer that got fined $1000. Ever since 9/11 there has been increasing scaremongering regarding people using "professional" looking cameras, which is an erosion of rights with no real benefits. I wouldn't photograph something I don't own, or that no one owns This would restrict you to photography only within your house, with all the shades drawn. Maybe even with the TV off.