phtographing people in public

[dj1298]

I saw a thread a while back on this topic. I can't seem to find it now. :(
So mods feel free to merge this to that other thread. I just saw this story http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dw....2a6de4ad.html on the news.

Did this guy have to give the tape/film to the officer?

"There are two elements to the offense," said Sgt. John Brimmer, a Grand Prairie police detective. "One is that the recording is done without the person's consent, and the other is that it is for the purpose of sexual gratification of another person."

Since it was on school grounds is that public or private? If it is public does he need consent?

Mr. Ware had raised suspicion in part, Sgt. Brimmer said, because he wasn't affiliated with any of the competing teams. Investigating officers determined that he was not at the tournament in any official capacity.

Now I have not seen the tape so he could be a super stalker creep for all I know. But I would like to kow the rules, written and how they are used in real life, before I go take pictures in public. So for now I will only be shooting me and my family.

[brad]

In general, my understanding is they can't take the camera unless they make an arrest... but just like searching your car at a traffic stop, there is a lot of gray area about "probable cause" ... if they can justify probable cause, they could insist on searching it. They can also detain you for 24 hours without making an official arrest....

Anyway, odds are he was doing something suspicious... does that mean he's guilty of anything? No. Same problem with a photographer in Grapevine at a public event not long ago... the officers on the scene thought one thing.. the judges threw it out without a trial, so you can't jump to conclusions.

[Stephen H]

Don't know the details- but if they actually arrested him, he wouldn't have a choice about the tape/film/camera.

On the school grounds, I know they DO control who goes on them- you can't just go roaming the halls for fun. And looks like he would need the conset either way, if it was done for that purpose.

[chloew]

Originally Posted by dj1298

Since it was on school grounds is that public or private? If it is public does he need consent?

School grounds are considered private property as are all businesses, malls, etc.

In addition this stature/law applies in public locations as well.

§ 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY[0] OR VISUAL RECORDING.  (a) 
In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 
43.21.
	(b)  A person commits an offense if the person:                                
		(1)  photographs or by videotape or other electronic 
means visually records another:
			(A)  without the other person's consent;  and                                
			(B)  with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual 
desire of any person;  or 
		(2)  knowing the character and content of the 
photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording 
described by Subdivision (1).
	(c)  An offense under this section is a state jail felony.                     
	(d)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this 
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor 
may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 458, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.  
Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 500, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 
2003.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/index.htm

I'm not a lawyer and this post should not be considered legal advice.

[Gordon]

Ignoring the child aspects of the particular case, but just reading the law, as written:

If I happen to see an attractive woman in the street and think 'my single friend would like the looks of her' it would actually be illegal for me to take a picture of her ?

Does this mean it's only legal to photograph ugly people on the street, in Texas ?

[chloew]

Originally Posted by Gordon

If I happen to see an attractive woman in the street and think 'my single friend would like the looks of her' it would actually be illegal for me to take a picture of her ?

Does this mean it's only legal to photograph ugly people on the street, in Texas ?

If your intent is to arouse his sexual desire, then Yes.

Attractive or ugly doesn't matter, only your intent in taking someone's picture without their consent.

If you see an attractive person and want to take their picture, you can ask them for their permission in which case you will be okay.

Also I assume (I'm not a lawyer) that as long as the other person knows that their picture is being taken and they don't object, they are in fact consenting to having their picture taken.

[jeffkohn]

School grounds are considered private property as are all businesses, malls, etc.

While true, this is really only relevent in that it means the property owner can restrict activities that people engage in on their property (for instance, photography or any number of other activities can be prohibited by the property owner).

However when it comes to privacy laws and whether you are able to take pictures of people "in public" without their consent, don't confuse a public place with government-owned property. There are plenty of places that are technically private property but that are open to the public and therefore people do not have a "resonable expectation of privacy".

[jeffkohn]

If your intent is to arouse his sexual desire, then Yes.

This is the real problem with the law, how exactly are you going to prove intent. I mean maybe some pictures could be subject to a "resonable person" test but there are going to be lots of photos that fall into that gray area. The legislature really needs to refine this law because the first time somebody gets convicted and it's not a blatent/clear violation there will probably be an appeal and I wouldn't be at all surprised if the law were thrown out as being unconstitutional.

It seems to me there's an obvious answer. Instead of the law trying to guess intent when the picture is taken, the law should be based on how the images are used. In other words taking a bikini shot at a public beach isn't necessarily illegal, but publishing such a shot on certain types of websites could be.

[chloew]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

It seems to me there's an obvious answer. Instead of the law trying to guess intent when the picture is taken, the law should be based on how the images are used. In other words taking a bikini shot at a public beach isn't necessarily illegal, but publishing such a shot on certain types of websites could be.

I agree with your comments Jeff, but I don't think that this will make the problem any easier. Whose to decide which web sites or what other actions are okay and which are not.

I'd like to say that I have a better way to define what is right and what is wrong in this case, but I don't.

It is a matter of balancing the right to privacy and not being exploited for another's desires with the right to basic freedom of expression. It makes it more difficult as the law is not trying to protect the individual victim, as much as uphold a certain level of decency in our society. These laws are in place to prevent further more serious crimes down the road, but make it very difficult to draw the line between right and wrong.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by chloew

I agree with your comments Jeff, but I don't think that this will make the problem any easier. Whose to decide which web sites or what other actions are okay and which are not.

Well, I dunno I think in the case of web sites that are marketing material for sexual arousal it's probably going to be pretty clear; if some of the spam I've gotten is any indication these people aren't exactly sublte in their marketing tactics. Maybe it's not a perfect solution as I guess there could still be some gray area, but I think it would make a whole lot more sense than the mess this current law is making.

[dreemes]

The internet brings in whole bigger problem. If someone from someoverseascountry secretly goes around photoing videoing people for sexual arousal and posts them on his web site that is hosted in someoverseascountry and sells access to his site then there doesn't seem to be a whole lot you can do about it.

This is why you see so much porn and scam sites like those so called watches are hosted in places like Russia. Because they can spam you and get people's money in the USA and nothing can be done about it.

[Rod Bishop]

(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person; or

If I might way on on this. First there is no private or public property requirements stated. Because of shooting from a private location onto(into) a public location, or visa versa. Second the paragraph "b(1)" as listed above states "and". This means it has to be both taken w/o consent "AND" for sexual gratification.

I would believe if your camera is full of shots of the "female" breast area or genital areas(of either sex), that could constitute prima facia evidence of "sexual gratification". We could all look at shots and tell if there are close up crotch shots, chances are that is the photog's intent.

As far as searching the contents of your camera or seizing the camera w/o a search warrant, that opens up a whole other can of worms. If you're not doing wrong, would it hurt to allow them review your shots on-location?

I'm no attorney, and not providing legal advice. (have to state that to keep all the attorneys happy!!! :) I base this upon years spent working in this arena. The bottom line will be based on decisions made in the field by the investigating officer(s).

I think we will have to be careful in any shooting situation, especially where there are minors involved. Everyone these days are paranoid about the voyeur photog.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents. Take that and four more dollars and you can get yourself a cup of coffee :)

Rod

[Gordon]

Originally Posted by Rod Bishop

If you're not doing wrong, would it hurt to allow them review your shots on-location?

If you're not doing anything wrong, would it hurt to let someone look through your bag to prove you didn't shoplift something ?

If you're not doing anything wrong, would it hurt to let someone look through your wallet ?

If you're not doing anything wrong, would it hurt to let someone search your glovebox?

If you're not doing anything wrong, would it hurt to let someone go through all the documents on your computer ?

Somewhere you should have a right to privacy and not just have to open everything up because someone with a uniform asks you to.

[Pikachu]

Originally Posted by Rod Bishop

[SNIP]
As far as searching the contents of your camera or seizing the camera w/o a search warrant, that opens up a whole other can of worms. If you're not doing wrong, would it hurt to allow them review your shots on-location?
[SNIP]

Yes. It absolutely would hurt. They have no right whatsoever to do so, and for the general public to continue to allow law enforcement to search without warrants only serves to further undermine our constitutional rights as a whole.

[markperez]

But with candids the photographer is including others so they should have some say so in the matter I believe.

Originally Posted by Gordon

If you're not doing anything wrong, would it hurt to let someone look through your bag to prove you didn't shoplift something ?

If you're not doing anything wrong, would it hurt to let someone look through your wallet ?

If you're not doing anything wrong, would it hurt to let someone search your glovebox?

If you're not doing anything wrong, would it hurt to let someone go through all the documents on your computer ?

Somewhere you should have a right to privacy and not just have to open everything up because someone with a uniform asks you to.