Photos may have violated privacy of topless women

[johnastovall]

Harris County man arrested at Hippie Hollow


"From the perspective of park rangers, Phu V. Nguyen was obviously violating the state's improper photography statute when he was arrested at Hippie Hollow nudist beach in Austin last weekend. The Harris County man hid himself behind thick vegetation, was photographing two topless women with a long telephoto lens and ran when they spotted him, rangers said.
But some criminal defense lawyers say the case raises complex legal questions because the women were at a public nudist beach where no laws would prohibit photographing those clothed or wearing swimsuits."

[SCone]

Probably would have posed for him if he hadn't been hiding?

[CaptainTom]

I think they had an "expectation of privacy" and he should be prosecuted.
If he had strolled down the beach with his camera, and they didnt' cover up, it might be a different thing. IMHO.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, becomes of this story.

[johnastovall]

Please respect the privacy of other visitors and ask permission before taking photographs.

Hippie Hollow Park - Special Notes.

Looks like if he had just walked down and ask he would have had no problems.

[dwilliams35]

The fact that he's hiding behind some trees to do it pretty much puts him in an entirely different category in my book. You can say that he was "trying to take himself out of the situation" to not affect the subject and surroundings, etc. etc. etc. ..... BS. he was hiding because he knew it wasn't right. HE knew it wasn't right: he shouldn't be shocked that he's getting prosecuted for it.

[Duffy Pratt]

There are lots of things that aren't right but aren't illegal. In this case, he may actually have thought he was breaking some law. That doesn't mean that he was. And yes, from the description, I'm willing to bet that he's probably a creep.

Duffy

[ggeen]

When one is at a public venue then there can be absolutely no expectation of privacy. If one wants to trounce around nude in private, do it at home. The next question is the hiding. Not sure it makes a difference to me if the photographer was camouflaged or not. I hide in the bushes to photograph birds, does that make it illegal?

I think the photog should get a good schister lawyer. This case does not pass the smell test.

-G

[Cam]

I remember when I was a kid, maybe 12 or so my Dad boated me close to the shore.
That was really cool, still remember it 30 years later.

If you are hiding in the bushes and running when confronted, you know you are doing something wrong.

[andyz]

This was in the Statesman on 8-12. I mentioned it in the thread on street shooting, as they were related, though not identical.

http://www.statesman.com/search/cont...812photos.html



Here are two snippets from the Austin story:
Under state law, "improper photography" is defined as taking a photograph of someone or visually recording them without the person's consent and with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.


James Hemphill, a First Amendment lawyer in Austin whose clients include the American-Statesman, said that under a broad interpretation of privacy laws, a person implicitly gives consent to be photographed by being in a public place.

While I support the First Amendment, the article doesn't make it sound like any model release was going to be obtained. I'm sure it didn't help that he hid, ran or lied about the pictures. The question comes down, perhaps, to what his motivation was. I know what it sounds like to me...

[Patti Edens]

Interesting case. I would hope that the photographer would get a good lawyer that would argue the law which seems in my opinion (I'm not an attorney) to favor the photographer. I don't want to see any precedent set that would prohibit photographers from taking candid photos in public places.

It seems the primary issue is "expectation of privacy".

I would suggest that a person at a public beach should have no expectation of privacy. So, while this photographer's lies and creepy (my opinion) behavior are not nice, they are also not in violation of any law. Signs suggesting that photographers ask permission first are not law, only suggestions. There are no laws, statutes or codes that require permission to take photographs in public places. Just putting a sign up does not constitute a law. Although, it usually works, so people do it.

I don't know the actual wording of the new law, so this is a bit shaky, but if it is worded as in the article, "camera operators knowingly produce material that invades the privacy of another and arouses or gratifies the sexual desire of any person.", then my interpretation would be that the violation of privacy has to occur AND some intent to arouse gratification of sexual desire. There was no violation of privacy, so the second half of the law doesn't even need to be considered. Even if it were considered, I would think that would be very difficult to prove.

This law was put in place because of sick-o landlords and building owners that put cameras in restrooms and people that secretly took photos in locker rooms. Therefore, because of this law, it is understood that people in restrooms do have an expectation of privacy. (Cripes, we needed a law for that?) But I think it would be very difficult to prove that anyone on a public beach would have that same expectation.

If they plea bargain out of this, it will only make it more difficult for other photographers. He may have been "creepy", but he really wasn't doing anything illegal.

Just IMHO.

[robert t]

The law was written so that some people could be prosecuted and we all agree on the ones that are targeted based on the comments above.

"taking a photograph of someone or visually recording them without the person's consent..."

First like many have said the are in a public place and are free to be observed by anyone from land or water and therefore they have no right to privacy. The people gave their consent to be seen and photographed by being there. As long as he was not going to publish or sell the images he needs no written consent for his own use.

"... and with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."

It is this phrase which is open to some interpretation, after all some people can be sexual aroused or gratified by a skimpy thong bathing suit photo or even by some of the images in the Human Form section of the forum. The same images we call artistic photography of nudes. These women were not posing in positions which we would consider pornographic in style (at least I would assume not). They were on a nude beach not unlike any other nude beech swimming or sun bathing.

I am sure like many of you agree he was up to good and that is why the LEO's got the DA to take charges. However he stands to win because I do not think the State can prove the case. If he is convicted I see this being appealed all the way to Washington; if he has he funds or an attorney that will take it pro bono.

And yes we need a la law like this so that the low life's could be prosecuted for taking these types of images of women and kids (men too) and circulating them in the underworld of slime. Previously they was no criminal violation.

It will be a case worth tracking. If nothing else it will fine tune the current law, hopefully to one that will protect victims as well as some photographers.

[Murph]

As much as it pains me, I must in this instance agree with Messr. Stovall. It WAS improper photography because Hippy Hollow is specifically a nude beach, with regulations pertaining to its use, so, in my mind therefore, there IS an expectation of privacy, and the actions of the photographer. In this case, and in this specific instance, as a cop, I would say that he was wrong, and had violated the law, and her rights.

Hippy Hollow has been around for years, back in the early 1980'2 when I was flying out of Fort Hood with the 6th Air Cavalry Bde, the Army made a regulation of no flights lower than 500 feet because of an incident at Hippy Hollow. Seems some crew of a UH-1 helicopter were very low, and pissed off a hippy chick, and she threw a rock and cracked the windshield of the helicopter. However Cobra gunships flew over regularly, because the TOW missile sight allowed perfect views of the Hollow.

[Murph]

Exactly, I want to see the case law that comes down out of this case.

Originally Posted by robert t

The law was written so that some people could be prosecuted and we all agree on the ones that are targeted based on the comments above.

It will be a case worth tracking. If nothing else it will fine tune the current law, hopefully to one that will protect victims as well as some photographers.

[robert t]

Hippy Hollow is a public park now run by Travis County.

[ggeen]

It is very difficult to prove, or disprove, intent. Case in point, what do I intend to do next?

-G