Illegal "Street" Photography

[hjfischer]

Here's a link to a recent news item covering the arrest of a photographer in a public place taking photos of topless subjects also in a public place:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/08/12/0812photos.html.
Since he was shooting with a zoom telephoto, maybe that's what caused his problem. Maybe he should have used a rangefinder?

[foggie]

Where can I see the photos that he took?

[Nh3]

Hiding behind a tree and photographing topless women on a beach is NOT street photography.

Just another old pervert with a camera.

[Chris101]

It seems that every day there is a different 'photographer hassled' story here, or elsewhere. Is the phenomenon really becoming more prevalent, or are we just becoming more sensitized to it. The only time I was ever approached by an 'authority' for taking pictures was in the 80s.

[ferider]

Blame the law :)

Texas Penal Code Section 21.15

§ 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY 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.

See also http://www.dumblaws.com

Cheers,

Roland.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Blame the law :)


Texas Penal Code Section 21.15

§ 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY 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.



See also http://www.dumblaws.com


The South is well-known for medieval and/or dumbfoundedly-broad laws.

So, if a person installs a security camera, he's already committing a felony, according to the infinite wisdom of the Texas State Legislature?

[dexdog]

The South is well-known for medieval and/or dumbfoundedly-broad laws.

So, if a person installs a security camera, he's already committing a felony, according to the infinite wisdom of the Texas State Legislature?

Only if the security cameras were placed to help someone get sexually aroused. It is an A+ B thing, not A or B.

Nice to see that there is no anti-Southern prejudice in this group

[Gabriel M.A.]

Only if the security cameras were placed to help someone get sexually aroused. It is an A+ B thing, not A or B.

Nice to see that there is no anti-Southern prejudice in this group

Just the fax :o

What if blurry low-res B&W arouses some people?

[btgc]

That said, any nature photographer hiding behind trees or lying under leaves with 500mm lens can be arrested because there on horizon are some naked ladies.

With film it's easy - just open camera to show - see, there are no pictures of naked woman, birds only ;)

[Beemermark]

It seems that every day there is a different 'photographer hassled' story here, or elsewhere. Is the phenomenon really becoming more prevalent, or are we just becoming more sensitized to it. The only time I was ever approached by an 'authority' for taking pictures was in the 80s.
I was ran off an Amtrak Train platform for taking pictures of (what else) Amtrak trains in Wilmington, DE (this was about 2003 or 2004). It was the Amtrak Police and reason was homeland security. They asked nicely, I had my pictures (on film) so I left. The humor was I was taking the pictures to enter in an Amtrak Photo contest (of what else but Amtrak!).

[jan normandale]

at hj, this is pretty goofy, the girls are cavorting semi naked in a public place and a man is taking their pix. My guess is both are doing something wrong, he's taking questionable pix and the girls are probably breaking a public nudity bylaw.

Make them both do a couple of day's work at the local hospital, or charity of their choice and tell them to behave better.

At Chris, I think there are more arrests these days due to enthusiastic "Barney Fife's" . Some arrests are legit however most do not hold up. That latter part is the disturbing part.

Many enforcement people have not been briefed on what is and is not permissible regarding photography in public areas and on private property. Both photographers and enforcement agents should do a bit of reading. It would help all around.

Here are some LINKS (http://www.flickr.com/groups/leavemealone/discuss/72157600112017365/) for photographers

[oftheherd]

It seems that every day there is a different 'photographer hassled' story here, or elsewhere. Is the phenomenon really becoming more prevalent, or are we just becoming more sensitized to it. The only time I was ever approached by an 'authority' for taking pictures was in the 80s.

Funny you should mention that. Sunday I was out doing my daily walk. I had taken a rf that I have had for some time but yet to use. Across the street, in a house yard, I saw a cut off tree that had a wooden cut out bear sitting on top of it, about 15 feet off the ground. I walked to the middle of the street and took a photo upwards, getting the sky and clouds behind the bear. A neighbor immediately stopped me and asked why I was taking photos. Out of a couple of hundred answers that came to mind, I told her I just thought the bear on the tree was unusual and so I photographed it. She watched me the whole time I walked away up to the corner. I haven't gotten used to the simple rf workflow, so as I was walking away I realized I had a perfectly good shot of the inside of my lenscap. :D

But I will go back, and if she questions me again, I will be patient unless she gets testy or snotty. Then I will just wish her a good day and walk away.

[williams473]

I agree with Dexdog (and am also from Northern VA!) -- my first reaction after reading the thread's title was to side with the photographer, but after reading the article, this seems a clear "peeping tom" case. If this wasn't illegal people would make a sport out of hanging in trees with telephotos and shooting people nude in their homes through their windows. ALTHOUGH, maybe I missed it in the article, but they weren't clear if the "Lake" area is public or private land. If it's public, I would have to question the women as to why they think it's okay to be topless on public land. If it's private, the photographer is in the wrong. Either war, the guy's definately being creepy, but if I encountered nude people, male or female on the street, I'd be compelled to start shooting out of the novelty of it if nothing else.

[Jim Smith]

This incident occurred at a public beach on Lake Travis, located west of Austin. The beach has been designated as "clothes optional". It is known locally as "Hippie Hollow"

[btgc]

Also - I just wonder if nobody has sued topless women by lake "because they made unrecoverable impact on mental health of observer by exposing in public[to be proven yet] parts of body usually covered, in Western culture".

[Gabriel M.A.]

The state's indecent exposure law does not bar women from being topless in public.

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.

Pervert or not, it's clear that if the sexes were reversed, "trunkless" men would have been arrested and a female photographer left alone.

[M C H]

The meat of the article is in the last few paragraphs:

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...

The state's indecent exposure law does not bar women from being topless in public.


James Hemphill...said that under a broad interpretation of privacy laws, a person implicitly gives consent to be photographed by being in a public place.



"As a matter of constitutional law, given that a person is in public and given that a photographer is in a public place and given no extraordinary technology is used, the Constitution must require that photography be allowed and not punished," Hemphill said.


"The lines start to blur when a person is in a private place but is visible from a public place, or with the using of technology to capture an image not visible with the unaided eye," he said.


There is, sadly, an entire industry around photos and videos of unsuspecting passersby designed to "gratify" paying customers. This law seems clearly aimed at preventing this.


Nevertheless it definitely raises concerns about the nature photog with a 500mm lens and misunderstanding with the public. Based on how the law is written, that misunderstanding would almost certainly not lead to any kind of conviction, but the photog's work might have been lost, at least interrupted.


It does raise an interesting question: does one give up all rights to privacy when in a public space?

[mabelsound]

It does raise an interesting question: does one give up all rights to privacy when in a public space?

Most, I think. But this does seem like a pretty straightforward peeping tom case.

[Gabriel M.A.]

It does raise an interesting question: does one give up all rights to privacy when in a public space?

If you were carrying your private information written on a T-Shirt, I don't think anybody would be faulted for reading it "unwittingly".

Security surveillance cameras operate on that very premise. How many people do you see pointing the cameras out and calling 911 to make those cameras stop?

[Gabriel M.A.]

Most, I think. But this does seem like a pretty straightforward peeping tom case.

We don't know that. It *seems* like it. The guy was an idiot, all things considered.

But he should have been arrested for committing a crime, not for offending somebody's morality by taking an image that was out there in public to be taken.

A strong warning. A temporary banning exercising common sense here.

[myoptic3]

First of all, Texas is hardly "the South". Second of all, this is the sort of thing we in the South have come to expect from Yankee #&^%#$#. The most idiotic laws I ever saw were up in Portland, Oregon. Let's keep our no-brain prejudices off the forum and in the corner dive bar where they belong.

[Gabriel M.A.]

First of all, Texas is hardly "the South". Second of all, this is the sort of thing we in the South have come to expect from
And that's why there was a war...

[M C H]

But it wasn't a "straightforward" peeping tom case in that the women were in a public space. I had always understood a peeping tom as one who peers into a private space.

But I do take your meaning, mabelsound - he was pretty clearly being salacious.

[M C H]

If you were carrying your private information written on a T-Shirt, I don't think anybody would be faulted for reading it "unwittingly".

Security surveillance cameras operate on that very premise. How many people do you see pointing the cameras out and calling 911 to make those cameras stop?

I think what the law is getting at in this case is the use of technology in a way that defeats the common idea of common space. What if that camera had the capacity to capture your driver's license information one showed the barrista while paying for that latte with a credit card?

The other aspect of the law is how such images are used. No one calls 911 because no one expects those images to be used improperly. But they certainly could be. Now what if that identification flashed for a latte were sold? Even assuming one was never negatively affected by this anonymous transaction, would it be legal?

Earlier in the thread someone joked that he should've been using a rangefinder. Actually, based on the comments of Mr. Hemphill, that might indeed be the case.

[sanmich]

I remember excellent shots of a nudist place by Eliot Erwitt.
Although I really liked the pictures they were a little short of "gratifiying my sexual desire"
But who can judge what is your intention?
what if I want to do a reportage on a strange (public) place where people walk around naked?
BTW, I think I now recall another event in Nevada where people are naked/disguised and seem to have great fun.
Ask me how I know (Hint: I never was in Nevada)

[Al Patterson]

I was ran off an Amtrak Train platform for taking pictures of (what else) Amtrak trains in Wilmington, DE (this was about 2003 or 2004). It was the Amtrak Police and reason was homeland security. They asked nicely, I had my pictures (on film) so I left. The humor was I was taking the pictures to enter in an Amtrak Photo contest (of what else but Amtrak!).

That is pretty funny. You should have just gone down to the Frawley Stadium area where one doesn't see many Amtrak police. I was asked once to leave that same platform on transportation day. I had taken about a dozen pictures from the Septa platform, and wanted some shots from the other side, and was told I couldn't. Now if I can take photos on one platform, why not the other one?

[Al Patterson]

Where can I see the photos that he took?

I'm sure you can find them, or some like them, with a creative Google search. I certainly won't supply the link for one such site I know about that posts Voyuer photos on the Web...

[ruben]

Good catch (by the police).

Cheers,
Ruben

[madsolitaire]

That's where being a member of the fairer sex has its advantages in street photography. The men are flattered, and the women just smile at me. ;-p

[lorenbliss]

Four points need to be considered here:

(1)-The Texas suspect, however odious the acts of which he is accused, is innocent until proven guilty.

(2)-The filing of formal sex charges against dissidents and/or slandering them by accusations of perversion is standard practice not merely in certain geographical regions but throughout the ChristoAmerican Theocracy of the United States. It is perhaps the most common weapon in the indigenous arsenal of oppression: many legitimate artists -- among them Edward Weston, the poet Allen Ginsberg, the publisher Ralph Ginzburg -- have been so victimized.

(3)-Police action against photographers of both genders and all ethnicities is actively encouraged by both the Patriot Act and the most anti-Bill of Rights political establishment in U.S. history, and is therefore at an all-time high. Indeed I have heard it said that if you are a person of color, merely carrying a camera in public can subject you to arrest. Here is an American Civil Liberties Union link that summarizes some of the most notorious cases:

http://www.aclu.org/search/search_wrap.html?q=photographers&imageField.x=21&imageField.y=2 (http://www.aclu.org/search/search_wrap.html?q=photographers&imageField.x=21&imageField.y=2)

(I can only guess as to how to post a link here, so I apologize for my compucretinism if the link is non-operational.)

(4)-Whether being in a public place makes one a legal subject for photography varies radically with the jurisdiction. In Manhattan, for example -- the one venue in the U.S. where artistic freedom even approaches that of Europe -- any photograph of people in public is publishable regardless of what the people are doing. In Seattle, by contrast, you can be sued for invasion of privacy if your photographs of people in public might be considered defamatory or even intrusive. Hence you can photograph without legal consequences the couple embracing in Central Park, while the same couple embracing in Green Lake Park is verboten: you couldn’t publish the picture without signed model releases. Indeed a major Puget Sound area newspaper -- the case was in the ’70s and I no longer remember which paper -- was successfully sued for invasion of privacy after it published the photograph of a grief-stricken accident victim; as I recall, the woman -- her face bloody -- had just learned the accident in which she had been injured had also made her a widow. In any case the court held that the fact she was in public -- even on a public roadway -- was no defense against the violation of her privacy. (This is probably one of the two big reasons there is no street photography as such in Seattle; the other is the region's domination by vindictively self-righteous Ansel Adams sycophants, zealots who reject social documentary photography as politically dangerous and denounce it as aesthetically irrelevant.)

[Sonnar2]

Hiding behind a tree and photographing topless women on a beach is NOT street photography.

Just another old pervert with a camera.

I second that.

[italy74]

Roland
in your first post about the law, this is what I read:

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;

To me, this "and" means that if you don't have the other's consent BUT you don't want to satisfy anyone sexual desire, you CAN ! AND means that both the two conditions must be met. (in this case the man photographing the topless women falls here) while I have to admit it's not that clear the second part.

[williams473]

"The filing of formal sex charges against dissidents and/or slandering them by accusations of perversion is standard practice not merely in certain geographical regions but throughout the ChristoAmerican Theocracy of the United States. It is perhaps the most common weapon in the indigenous arsenal of oppression: many legitimate artists -- among them Edward Weston, the poet Allen Ginsberg, the publisher Ralph Ginzburg -- have been so victimized."

Actually, I believe this so-called "arsenal of oppression" plays into the artist's hands ultimately. "Any press is good press," and controversy ultimately sells books and tickets to shows. And the fact that I can go into a mainstream bookstore like Borders and purchase a Maplethorpe book containing images of a model with a bottle up his arse sort of proves that the U.S. isn't nearly as theocratic as you believe it to be. Some parts are conservative, yes, but we are far from theocratic. Ginsberg and Weston are pretty major artists, and I don't know of any of their work that we are not allowed to consume at this point in time, not like in say, China.

"Indeed I have heard it said that if you are a person of color, merely carrying a camera in public can subject you to arrest."

I agree that authorities are more on edge about everything going on in public places since 9/11, as they should be, but time and again, what few wrongful arrests that are occurring are not being upheld by the courts. There simply is no written mandate from the government to arrest people of color with cameras – that’s rediculous. One can’t always account for what a lone police officer can do – they can pretty much do whatever they want, but once an arrest occurs, the arrested ends up in court, at which time justice is usually served. What racism people encounter from police is generally going to be a result of the personal character defects of the officer – the person would be racist regardless of his or her profession, not racist because they are a police officer.

“Manhattan, for example -- the one venue in the U.S. where artistic freedom even approaches that of Europe…”

Not really on point, but there are MANY more artistically free places than NYC, like pretty much the rest of the country. I agree NYC is one of the top US cities for viewing art, (God bless Cornell Capa for ICP) but this notion that Europe is more “artistic” than the US is crap, unless you’re talking objective facts like comparing government expenditures on art or something like that. And actually photographing in NYC? I mean come on - NYC is the most trite, hackneyed locale to shoot in the U.S., simply because it’s been done to death by both still and motion picture photographers. Not that someone can’t still find a way to produce good work there, but I am personally much more interested in artists working in places I’ve never heard of, exploring new light, people and locales than another portfolio of freakin’ NYC street scenes. And Seattle has plenty of street photography going on in and around it, I assure you. I mean, you’re fairly sure of your characterization of the “vindictively self-righteous Ansel Adams sycophants” (how many of them are there, and what organization are they with?) that apparently have single handedly stifled all traces of photojournalism in the Northwest region.

But to get back on topic, the original case cited in this thread is an interesting case, but it is about where the line is for personal privacy, as it relates to people photographing other nude people without their consent on public land. It’s a case worth discussing, and this peeping tom will have his day in court. This idea that we live in some sort of oppressive regime in the US that is slowly eroding our freedoms is just not the case. Yeah, authorities are touchier - I’ve had a few run-ins with police myslef while photographing since 9/11, I was even detained for 10 minutes while they checked my license etc., but I was polite to the officer, knew my rights and that was it. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, photographers appear suspicious to law enforcement, and this is a relationship we’re going to have to tolerate for a while. I would suggest that the World will reflect whatever values judgements you impose upon it, so I suppose if our country seems a police state to you, then it will be for you. I am still being an optimist and comparing our country to many others, even ones pretending to be democracies like Russia, and finding we are still very, very free to do as we please.

[italy74]

William, I can't read almost anything of your post... it's all greyed.. ???

[JohnTF]

I personally, am looking for the perfect exposed Piano "Limb", especially a nicely turned ankle, in public of course.

I know of someone who just gave his P&S to his young son on the beach, and he quickly smiled at all the young ladies and snapped their "portraits". Yeah, it was in Europe.

We do certainly have an odd view of what any kind of skin means in the US. What is "correct" seems to change hourly and by location. For a country spouting freedom quite often, we just cannot seem to define it. We seem to alternate between paranoia and freedom. We do seem to be obsessed in a lot of areas our puritan ancestors would have no trouble defining.

What is just plain rude varies as well, I used to be much more assertive when I was shooting for a newspaper, in a working situation, but also got chased by cops on horse back for my efforts. Plain Clothes Police in the 70's would shoot head shots of people in the crowds, and lied about the whole thing.

I did try to consider whether I was being rude.

I love all the stock images on every TV network of "Fat" stomaches or rears, or thin ones for that, with the heads cut off, used for the weekly comment on the condition or lack of, the "average" person.

We also have the "consumer advocate" people who hound any "evil doer" for comments, right to their doors or their car, and then report they would not answer the door. When we could find nothing in research, we noted a "paucity" of data, which filled up a sentence.

Photography, or drawing, is invasive, if done by the Establishment, it is security.

To get a candid expression, you either find a subject willing to ignore you, or not know you are there. My friend Florencio in Mexico shoots wonderful street and environmental portraits, and he feels if you have expensive equipment, people feel you are an artist, cooperate, and about the worst thing that might happen is someone asks you for a tip.


The Equal Rights Amendment is law in Ohio, and a number of states, so the same laws that affect one affect the other, in theory, but people are not really doing the topless thing much, or I am hanging around the wrong places.


These days, people on vacation get a few belts, and soon the rest is myspace history, well, mom told me life is not fair.

I have topless shots of me, and my new woman friend waving at the camera, taken by her topless mother using my camera on the beach. Just a vacation snap from the beach in Greece.

If you get nude in public, well, you are in public, if you are rude in public, well you are rude.

Just where it involves the law is open to someone's interpretation.

The guy in the story seems to be rude and less than candid with the police, which may be his undoing, whether he is the "slippery slope" remains to be seen.

[ferider]

Roland
in your first post about the law, this is what I read:

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;

To me, this "and" means that if you don't have the other's consent BUT you don't want to satisfy anyone sexual desire, you CAN ! AND means that both the two conditions must be met. (in this case the man photographing the topless women falls here) while I have to admit it's not that clear the second part.

Hi Dino,

I do read it like you, but I'm not a lawyer.

I posted the state law without judgement (and assuming it contradicts federal law), because it feels to me like an example of the many US laws that contradict each other and don't seem enforcable (depending on which city, county, and state you are in). In the end, if you get accused, the outcome will only depend on a court's decision. One of the more prominent examples where I live (CA), is the use of Canabis. But there are many much stranger ones.

To keep the humour, here is a list of funny sex laws in different US regions:

http://nerdnirvana.org/categories/jokes/dumb-laws

:)

Cheers,

Roland.

[jan normandale]

I personally, am looking for the perfect exposed Piano "Limb", especially a nicely turned ankle, in public of course.

I know of someone who just gave his P&S to his young son on the beach, and he quickly smiled at all the young ladies and snapped their "portraits". Yeah, it was in Europe.

We do certainly have an odd view of what any kind of skin means in the US. What is "correct" seems to change hourly and by location. For a country spouting freedom quite often, we just cannot seem to define it. We seem to alternate between paranoia and freedom. We do seem to be obsessed in a lot of areas our puritan ancestors would have no trouble defining.

What is just plain rude varies as well, I used to be much more assertive when I was shooting for a newspaper, in a working situation, but also got chased by cops on horse back for my efforts. Plain Clothes Police in the 70's would shoot head shots of people in the crowds, and lied about the whole thing.

I did try to consider whether I was being rude.

I love all the stock images on every TV network of "Fat" stomaches or rears, or thin ones for that, with the heads cut off, used for the weekly comment on the condition or lack of, the "average" person.

We also have the "consumer advocate" people who hound any "evil doer" for comments, right to their doors or their car, and then report they would not answer the door. When we could find nothing in research, we noted a "paucity" of data, which filled up a sentence.

Photography, or drawing, is invasive, if done by the Establishment, it is security.

To get a candid expression, you either find a subject willing to ignore you, or not know you are there. My friend Florencio in Mexico shoots wonderful street and environmental portraits, and he feels if you have expensive equipment, people feel you are an artist, cooperate, and about the worst thing that might happen is someone asks you for a tip.


The Equal Rights Amendment is law in Ohio, and a number of states, so the same laws that affect one affect the other, in theory, but people are not really doing the topless thing much, or I am hanging around the wrong places.


These days, people on vacation get a few belts, and soon the rest is myspace history, well, mom told me life is not fair.

I have topless shots of me, and my new woman friend waving at the camera, taken by her topless mother using my camera on the beach. Just a vacation snap from the beach in Greece.

If you get nude in public, well, you are in public, if you are rude in public, well you are rude.

Just where it involves the law is open to someone's interpretation.

The guy in the story seems to be rude and less than candid with the police, which may be his undoing, whether he is the "slippery slope" remains to be seen.

what a great post!

[ruben]

....................

If you get nude in public, well, you are in public, if you are rude in public, well you are rude.

...............


I would like to be very much wrong, but this sentence sounds to me like saying:

If you get nude in public, well, be ready for the consequences

Then, if you are a woman and get raped - you have provoked it.

Frankly speaking, I don't think JohnTF will agree with this interpretation of his thoughts and would like very much to explain why.

Cheers,
Ruben

[sepiareverb]

I can't imagine he'd have gotten any images walking onto the beach or out into the water with a 50mm lens and snapping away. :D Yet that would have been much less questionable.

Sadly, how hassled one gets is most often dependent on what the photographer looks like, race included. It is important to remember that those of us in the US are never required to turn over camera, film or memory cards to anyone without a warrant, and that persons who are questioning you repeatedly or in a threatening manner are the ones pushing the breaking of the law. I explain myself and the law politely once, more aggressively the second time (if the situation feels safe) and end the sentence with an offer to call the police "right now". I've not called them yet. In fact I rarely need to explain myself a second time, despite my less than upstanding appearance.

This article does make it seem like the guy wanted the pictures to get off, but he did not have to let the Ranger search his bag.

[FallisPhoto]

Blame the law :)



See also http://www.dumblaws.com

Cheers,

Roland.


If I rob a bank and flash the camera, can I sue the bank for taking my photo?

[FallisPhoto]

I would like to be very much wrong, but this sentence sounds to me like saying:

If you get nude in public, well, be ready for the consequences

Then, if you are a woman and get raped - you have provoked it.

Frankly speaking, I don't think JohnTF will agree with this interpretation of his thoughts and would like very much to explain why.

Cheers,
Ruben

The Supreme Court here has ruled that if you are out in public, and have not "secluded yourself from public view," then you have almost no right to privacy. Exceptions would be in places like public toilets.

It gets confusing because there are federal laws, state laws and municipal laws and sometimes, as in this case, they contradict each other. In many states, the photographer would not have done anything illegal. Apparently, Texas is not one of those states though.

It's a mess and you really need to stop by the local library, if you're planning to do anything involving public photography, especially involving nudes, and look up the local laws. Here in Virginia, it is legal, but you'd need to get a signed release afterward and you'd need to make a minimum payment of $10 to your model/subject for it to be legally binding.

[ruben]

The Supreme Court ................legally binding.


Hi Fallis,
There are several topics going on parallel in this thread. One of them reffers to the legal aspects. Another is about the ongoing persecution of photographers.
The third, the one that concerns me, is the ethical one.

If this specific case belongs to the photographers harrasment saga or not, I am unable to answer. Perhaps the guy urgently needed to urinate, looked for the best three around, and by accident his camera "auto" went on.

What The Law says or doesn't, is the least concern for me, due to several viewpoints. Among them the fact that The Law can always be twisted, in the field or in court, by us or by the authorities.

But our common sense, and how do we interprete ourselves and our subjects - this is, in my opinion, the most relevant issue.

Although I doubt I have told you anything new, get my
Cheers,
Ruben

[FallisPhoto]

Hi Fallis,
There are several topics going on parallel in this thread. One of them reffers to the legal aspects. Another is about the ongoing persecution of photographers.
The third, the one that concerns me, is the ethical one.

If this specific case belongs to the photographers harrasment saga or not, I am unable to answer. Perhaps the guy urgently needed to urinate, looked for the best three around, and by accident his camera "auto" went on.

What The Law says or doesn't, is the least concern for me, due to several viewpoints. Among them the fact that The Law can always be twisted, in the field or in court, by us or by the authorities.

But our common sense, and how do we interprete ourselves and our subjects - this is, in my opinion, the most relevant issue.

Although I doubt I have told you anything new, get my
Cheers,
Ruben

Well, I kind of doubt that the cited "photographer's" ethics could stand much in the way of close scrutiny. In addition, it looks like he broke a state law (leaving aside the issue of whether the law is in contradiction of a standing federal law). I have no doubt that photographers are being persecuted too. What the law says is fairly important though, because it can hurt you.

[Gabriel M.A.]

I would like to be very much wrong, but this sentence sounds to me like saying:

If you get nude in public, well, be ready for the consequences

Then, if you are a woman and get raped - you have provoked it.

This "logic" is going too far, and is the kind of logic that creates "silly" (to say the least) laws.

You're making a very fallaced and dangerous jump like this:

If you say that if I go swim into the ocean, well, be ready for the consequences.

Then, if you are a pirate and get shot, you have provoked it.

A very serious, Freudian jump, and nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[JohnTF]

I would like to be very much wrong, but this sentence sounds to me like saying:

If you get nude in public, well, be ready for the consequences

Then, if you are a woman and get raped - you have provoked it.

Frankly speaking, I don't think JohnTF will agree with this interpretation of his thoughts and would like very much to explain why.

Cheers,
Ruben


Logic is not the forte of such an argument, save the last sentence.

I do not think your appearance in public should result in some violent crime, and it is a bit crazy to imply such. To allow such a conclusion, would literally blame the victim of almost any crime. "He should not be carrying a Leica, some RFF Crazy might have a breakdown and make an offer he could not refuse?"

People in most of the world that I have visited expect if a person is good looking, there is a good chance someone will look at them, with no great question of intention.

It got to the point that in some places in the US, looking at a woman more than 7 seconds was leering, and a crime.

The guy in the woods with a camera probably convicted himself out of his own mouth as he opened with some babel to the police.

If you get nude in public, someone may see you, and someone may photograph you with any number of camera types, phones, or make a quick sketch. If your intentions do not match the culture, you may be rude, or a criminal as will be decided later.

What passes for nude in the US, is not nude in much of the world.

Evidentally most people have adjusted their attitudes accordingly.

Try to find a beach in Europe that is not topless, for both sexes, and I do not think the crime rate is higher than the US.

I do not really understand this guy at all, if he wants a photo like this, am sure he could find it more easily, however, I would prefer any guy with a camera is not labeled a GWC.

Sorry for the short post, ;-) am off to the airport.

[Spider67]

As about stupid (sounding) laws: Sometimes laws get that peculiar stupid sound because the people working on it want to avoid all kinds of pitfalls and shrewd interpretations.
Yes for me "improper photography" and taking phozos in a "deviant manner" sounds hilarious perhaps like criteria which are applied on over zealous photo sites when judging Photographs.
In Austria for example the policeman would have asked the guy what h*** he was doing and would have chased him away. Regardless if there were any laws out of a hunch that what the guy was doing was not alright. Also because many Austrians (given our political past and tradition) rarely take a stand when it cames to their prsonal rights.
So for me the guy was a jerk who could harm other peolpe by posting these unauthorized pics....on the other hand as much as I´ve heard the thrill of being caught is part of that kind of behaviour.

[ruben]

................

If you get nude in public, someone may see you, and someone may photograph you with any number of camera types, phones, or make a quick sketch. If your intentions do not match the culture, you may be rude, or a criminal as will be decided later.

..............


Hi John, and the other friends,

I am not sure I have properly explained myself, and the last thing I intended was to imply that you John support rape of naked women.

I just went to an extreme in order to clarify my feeling that you are putting some of the blame on the woman involved, for being naked. And this logics taken to some point are the basis of much of the misunderstanding among people in general about women's behaviour, their motivations, their rights.

Nevertheless, it is possible that I went confused by the wording, as I feel again in the abovequoted sentence.

The blame we are talking in this case is the invasion of the two topless women privacy by a folk making a photo of them.

The problem with John's abovequoted sentence for me, may be that he starts with "If you get nude in public", therefore, under my understanding, implaying some twisted intentions, or lack of understanding, by the women involved.

From the purelly legalistic point of view, may be there are some grounds of discussion about the specific place involved. But from the data supplayed, common sense is crystal clear: The two didn't go topless amidst a street.

Besides, it is my opinion that by evolution of social customs and the improvement of the status of women, a woman has a right to swim topless at a more or less reclused site, and expect the protection of her privacy (not being recorded or molested in any other way) by the law, and if not - to challenge the law implementation at court.

According to the newspaper,

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. If convicted, Nguyen could face up to two years in a state jail.
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. If convicted, Nguyen could face up to two years in a state jail.

Literally, this makes much sense to me. Of course any law can always be applicated in a distorted way, but let's distinguish among the two.

Cheers,
Ruben

BTW, when speaking about invasion of privacy, in a totally unrelated context, it comes to my mind the field court made to president Clinton. I have no special issue for him being a sexual sucker.

But allowing the politicians and press to enter his prived life, to save his seat, instead of blocking it all with a clear stand on behalf of his right to full privacy in his personal life - a stand going up to resignation from power - this shows the man had no much personal backbone. A pitty.

[lorenbliss]

For reasons irrelevant to this thread, I've been away from photographing in public for nearly a quarter century, but today to test a new/used M Leica I was photographing abandoned industrial buildings and general street scenes in a Puget Sound city, and I was twice approached by police and asked what I was doing.

While I have surely been confronted by cops when I was covering riots and/or demonstrations, these are the only times I have ever been so approached while making unpeopled scenics -- essentially nothing more than studies of light and visual geometry -- since I began photographing and writing professionally in 1956.

No doubt because I'm white, and probably also because I am elderly, the officers were very polite , and I of course was equally polite in return.

Though I am unabashedly a civil libertarian, I am nevertheless very much unlike the vast majority of those who share my leftist political views in that I am most assuredly no cop-hater. In fact -- perhaps because I was once a soldier myself -- I recognize armed-services folks as working-class brothers or sisters doing a dangerous but absolutely essential job. Indeed it is precisely that attitude which, in the years I was part of the working press, gave me police access many of my professional colleagues were denied.

However I also recognize it is my white skin -- and very likely only my white skin -- that grants me the freedom to hold such attitudes.

That said, three principles would seem useful to bear in mind while photographing in public in the post 9/11 United States:

(1)-When approached by the police ("What are you doing there?"), respond very directly, and if possible make eye contact with the officer, for example, "I'm photographing this old building." The point to remember here is that, from the police perspective, if you act guilty of something, you probably are. Remember that -- despite the ongoing effort of the most powerful anti-Bill-of-Rights coalition in U.S. history (Republican and Democrat alike) -- the First Amendment remains in effect.

(2)-If asked for ID, don't hesitate to show it, and to provide any supplemental ID -- press card, photography club membership card, whatever -- that might help establish your legitimacy. (Though I have not had press credentials for many years, I nevertheless carry my National Press Photographers Association and National Writers Union cards.)

(3)-Above all try to avoid any mindset that reflexively demonizes the police. Cops -- especially cops in dangerous jurisdictions (which includes any real city in the U.S.) -- develop early in their careers the keenest intuitive skill at threat assessment, a vital survival mechanism that includes the ability to sense the attitudes (and thus potential intentions and/or actions) of anyone they approach.

In both these encounters today, the officers each ended the interaction with a brief, polite explanation, essentially the statement they were "just checking" to make sure everything was ok. My response to each officer was to say something to the effect of "yeah I understand...thank you."

All of which I post here in the hope it may be useful to others. But then, as I say, the color of my skin grants me the privilege of my assumptions.

[JohnTF]

Hi John, and the other friends,

I am not sure I have properly explained myself, and the last thing I intended was to imply that you John support rape of naked women.

I just went to an extreme in order to clarify my feeling that you are putting some of the blame on the woman involved, for being naked. And this logics taken to some point are the basis of much of the misunderstanding among people in general about women's behaviour, their motivations, their rights.

Nevertheless, it is possible that I went confused by the wording, as I feel again in the above quoted sentence.

The blame we are talking in this case is the invasion of the two topless women privacy by a folk making a photo of them.

The problem with John's above quoted sentence for me, may be that he starts with "If you get nude in public", therefore, under my understanding, implying some twisted intentions, or lack of understanding, by the women involved.

From the purely legalistic point of view, may be there are some grounds of discussion about the specific place involved. But from the data suppled, common sense is crystal clear: The two didn't go topless admist a street.

Besides, it is my opinion that by evolution of social customs and the improvement of the status of women, a woman has a right to swim topless at a more or less reclused site, and expect the protection of her privacy (not being recorded or molested in any other way) by the law, and if not - to challenge the law implementation at court.

According to the newspaper,

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. If convicted, Nguyen could face up to two years in a state jail.
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. If convicted, Nguyen could face up to two years in a state jail.

Literally, this makes much sense to me. Of course any law can always be applicated in a distorted way, but let's distinguish among the two.

Cheers,
Ruben

BTW, when speaking about invasion of privacy, in a totally unrelated context, it comes to my mind the field court made to president Clinton. I have no special issue for him being a sexual sucker.

But allowing the politicians and press to enter his private life, to save his seat, instead of blocking it all with a clear stand on behalf of his right to full privacy in his personal life - a stand going up to resignation from power - this shows the man had no much personal backbone. A pity.


Ruben, I suppose I could have used the word "when" in place of "if", and I regret if I did not make my meaning crystal clear, but it was not close to your reading, but that is what happens when people communicate via written posts, my grandmother even told me to be careful what you put in writing, as it can be open to misinterpretation not likely to occur in spoken communication.

I can only assure that your statement could not be further from the truth, logically nor intentionally. And I do not support the rape of anyone, naked or not, in fact, I am against it.

As far as expectations of civility, they are quite normally questions of manners, and quite often not in the legal area. I have photographed topless friends and strangers, who did not object in the slightest, but the person looking at the photograph had to take my word for it.

In writing very specific academic papers or laws, there often evolves wordage that tries to most clearly state the precise meaning, sometimes, that is exploited to apply to some unintended application, which leads to more explanations. Politically, you can always question the "real" intent of the jargon.


Sometimes when I see a statute, I sometimes wonder if some common language should have been added after the boiler plate that just says, hey, this is what we want to do.

I took the Ferry in Seattle this week, while waiting security videos were playing, and they showed a guy kneeling with an SLR, taking a photo of the Ferry, and the next scene showed a woman turning him in to authorities for possible terroristic intent, implying if you use an SLR, kneel "professionally" for a better angle, and are a man, you could be bad news.

I crossed several times, and hundreds of people shoot photos on all parts of the boat, it is a tourist attraction. Yet, people were encouraged to turn in only people with SLRs, I wonder if a bad guy with a RF has ever been spotted. The black hoodie would have been the tell? The security video was really poorly conceived, and its real intentions are anyone's guess. It has the effect of a very poorly written overly vague law.

I could figure the intention, maybe, but the communication was a bit bizarre. Well, they encouraged people to turn in people who litter.

When a law is overly vague and broad, then even well intentioned people become confused. Though the guy in this case seems a flake, who knows his intentions?

And I have regretted passing up shots because I did not wish to be too intrusive, though some of the best works extant have perhaps been more than a bit intrusive, but again this is a matter of taste and manners, not law. Sometimes you can only tell when it is too late.

Regardless of how secluded you think you might be, you may not have much expectation of privacy in public.

And as far as advantages, there is some advantage to your appearance, if you look like Brad Pitt, you probably can get away with a lot more leering in the US. I also have not heard of an attractive women being arrested for checking out a guys whatever. ;-)


Regards, John