Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips

ggeen · 04-24-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainTom

There's no call to involve the ex-president in this arrest.

If it were me, and I'm not saying I would ever take photos of cleavages, I'd have started to show the photos to the guard and hit the Menu button, then Format/Yes by mistake. Preview button "no images"... oops, sorry.

Oooo, you're sneaky. Nikon has a 2 button format option. There is one button on the back of the camera, and one on top. Push them at the same time and it formats your CF card. It is a veryl deliberate act to do this but can be performed without anyone noticing

msabas · 04-24-2009, 11:49 AM

I was scared there.. I thought he was taking improper shots of the animals....

jeffkohn · 04-24-2009, 12:03 PM

I do think that these 'improper photography' laws seem to be un-constitutional, unenforceable, and open to way too much interpretation when they are enforced. Of course, if the guy had known his rights better he could have saved himself some trouble by just refusing to hand his camera over to the security guard.

Having said that what the guy was doing was distasteful and creepy; and every time something like this pops up in the news coverage it just further feeds the general public's mistrust of photographers unfortunately.

Imagebuffet · 04-24-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hogleg 44

I suspect that eventually some reasonably competent lawyer is going to enjoy defending this guy, and then suing the Guard and Seaworld!
While what he is accused of doing is not morally proper, I suspect it is stretching some law to call it illegal. These were not up-skirt photos.
Personally, I feel like the security guy was pushing his authority a bit to have the photog arrested because he was taking photos of women, and anatomy, that they were apparently openly and publicly displaying.

FWIW, a Fed court (maybe more than one) has ruled that up-skirt photos are lawful under the Constitution.

Again, *anything* that is visible while you are out in public is Constitutionally-permitted to be photographed, regardless of local laws.

jeffkohn · 04-24-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imagebuffet

FWIW, a Fed court (maybe more than one) has ruled that up-skirt photos are lawful under the Constitution.

Do you have references you can cite? That seems unlikely to me, because it would fall under the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' clause that pretty much all privacy laws contains.

Quote:

Again, *anything* that is visible while you are out in public is Constitutionally-permitted to be photographed, regardless of local laws.

You seem to be disagreeing with yourself. The nether regions of a woman wearing a skirt are not visible when out in public, unless said skirt is see through.

RKEnnis · 04-24-2009, 12:38 PM

What law is he supposed to have broken? The pertinent Texas law would SEEM to be "21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING". But to convict him of that, they would have to be able to prove that he took the shots "with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person". I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how they could possibly prove his intent!

I don't agree with or like his behavior. But just because someone doesn't like it, doesn't mean he should be arrested for it!

I guess I'm being naive, but I honestly thought that taking photos in public was a basic civil liberty.

texkam · 04-24-2009, 01:26 PM

Next week we'll see an article about SeaWorld being sued for allowing exposed cleavage, undergarments, (bras, thongs, sagging) in a family venue.

Rson · 04-24-2009, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by texkam

Next week we'll see an article about SeaWorld being sued for allowing exposed cleavage, undergarments, (bras, thongs, sagging) in a family venue.

Good luck with that, I just came from 2 days there.....Some of the women in the waterpark made my 32 week pregnant wife look like Twiggy. I didn't know that bikini's were made in size 24.

I vomitted in my mouth a few times.

Imagebuffet · 04-24-2009, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Do you have references you can cite? That seems unlikely to me, because it would fall under the 'reasonable expectation of privacy' clause that pretty much all privacy laws contains.

I'm not sure that I can find something from the Fed level, but here are a few from various states:

"The Washington Supreme Court judges said that two men who took surreptitious photos and video of women and girls using tiny cameras "engaged in disgusting and reprehensible behavior." However, the judges said they did not infringe on any reasonable expectations of privacy because the images were captured in public places."

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-960151.html?tag=fd_top

"Florida Court: It’s OK to Look up a Woman’s Skirt with a Mirror, as Long as It’s a Public Place"

http://deanesmay.com/2008/05/20/flor...-public-place/

"Court Drops Case of 'Peeping Tom' in Target; Says Victim Was Not in Private Place"

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...337173,00.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

You seem to be disagreeing with yourself. The nether regions of a woman wearing a skirt are not visible when out in public, unless said skirt is see through.

What if the wind blew up her skirt? What if she fell down? What if she walked up a set of stairs? Some women wear underwear or pants or something exactly to prevent exposure when in public. They would rather you see what they are wearing than seeing their body; so what they are wearing is intended to be a last-ditch layer of privacy, not something that is itself private.

I don't condone up-skirt photos; I use that as the most extreme case of privacy. My point is that anything one does in public view is fair game for photographing.