Ok, this one should bring some interesting discussion. I know we all are more aware of sex offenders now a days since they have to be registered, but this seems to be a very strange case. The guy was taking pictures in public. How is that not allowed? I’m not trying to say what he was doing was appropriate, but I really don’t see how it can be against the law. Then again, I guess there could be more information that they’re not saying. So* what do you think?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I think if he's taking photos without people's consent and if he's also taking sexual photos in public, then there's some illegal stuff going on. It's hard to say since the article is very brief.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that to be illegal, both criteria have to be met: taking pictures in a public place without consent AND taking pictures for sexual gratification.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't say what the pictures are. Pictures of people in public are perfectly legal even without permission, although you can get into some issues if you use those photos as trademarks or promotions. But if this guy was holding the camera at an angle to take, say, upskirt photos, I can see why he would be charged.
Doesn't mean he'll be convicted, though. I think it was Seattle where a judge declared taking upskirt photos was legal as the subjects were in public. I disagree with this ruling, but there you go. I think a woman wearing a skirt in public has a reasonable guarantee of privacy that would be violated by someone shoving a camera under there.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't sound like an up the skirt thing. Sounded like he was doing a zoom in on certain parts thing.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember reading about this yesterday, and thought it was pretty messed up. Here's another link that has some additional information. MSNBC News
The part that really gets me is this:
quote:Police then searched Thompson's car in the parking lot and found some strange things: provocative pictures of young women, rope, a knife, stuffed animals and his business card promoting a porn website and magazine..."Who can say which of these girls he's already put out on a website, and they don't even know," Dorothy told WOAI.
Edit: Oops, different stories.
That's actually pretty sad that there are lots of stories like this because of how common it's becoming. They really need to figure out some laws so that they know how to prosecute this kind of stuff, and so that these types of people aren't able to fall through loopholes in the legal system because of outdated definitions.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person," Douglas said."
That's just weird. I'd like our legal people here at Hatrack to explain that. I'm pretty sure I can take pictures with other people in them even if they don't consent. At least, if I don't use them to make money, right?
And ANY picture could be for sexual gratification. I could love (and do ) Indian women and take non-sexual pictures of them, then go home and "use" them, couldn't I? ( I don't do that!) Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is also possible that the local prosecutor will amend or drop the charges, if the police got it wrong. In the meantime, the guy knows two things:
1) He's not going to be allowed to do this in future without causing some kind of alert, and,
2) The police know who he is.
Frankly, while he may not have done anything illegal, it's probably fair to say that the women and the parents of children would probably not have consented to any sort of explicit photos being taken. If the law allows photography in public places, that's fine, he may not be in that much trouble...this time. But he's clearly behaving inappropriately and I'm betting the community standard would come into play if he was doing thinks like taking pictures up skirts, down blouses, etc.
It'll be interesting to see what happens once the prosecutor gets ahold of this.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Treason. If taking pictures in public is legal (and it should be, I'd think) then it should not matter how you might be "using" those pictures - provided you aren't publishing them somewhere public. Almost any picture of someone could be used for sexual gratification.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I was at the DMV last spring, and it was a beautiful day and I was wearing a cute little dress, knee length, with bright pink flowers on it and a pink cardigan over it. The dress wasn't particularly low cut or anything, but it was a square neckline, so even with the sweater there was certainly more skin exposed than, say, if I was wearing a T-shirt, but it wasn't anything I couldn't wear to church. And have, in fact, worn to church. Regardless, between the flowers and the pink and whatever, it's kinda a flirty looking outfit.
And I was standing at the counter filling out forms, and finished, and looked up, and about 3' away there was a guy standing there holding out his phone and looking very intently at the screen. And it seemed odd, but it wasn't until a minute later that I realized he had been taking a picture of me with a camera phone.
I don't know if he was focused in on my cleavage or anything in particular, or was just taking a picture. And either way I don't think it should be illegal, but it was most certainly wrong. I felt like my privacy had been invaded, and it was really creepy. I have no idea what he intended to do with the picture -- and I don't really want to think about it.
On one hand, what's it matter? The guy saw a pretty girl and wanted to take a picture. It's not hurting me any that he has it. But it's rude. Both for him to have taken my picture without my permission and for the momentary creepy feeling it gave me. Because when something like that happens, you have to think of the what ifs. What if he's a psycho out looking for his next stalking victim? He could have easily also taken a picture of the forms I was filling out, and have my name, address, and other personal information. Or he could have followed me out to my truck and got the license plate, and found me that way. Both unlikely. And I'm sure it never even crossed his mind that what he was doing would cause me a moment's worry. Which is kinda the definition of inconsiderate.
So. Whatever this guy was doing at the fair, if it doesn't fall into definitions of child pornography, I don't think it should be illegal. But it is decidedly creepy.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: But it's rude. Both for him to have taken my picture without my permission and for the momentary creepy feeling it gave me.
Which is why my policy is to approach the lovely women and say "Pardon me, miss. I noticed that you're looking enormously attractive and was wondering if you'd permit me to take your picture."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference, in my mind, Jay, between taking pictures either of a large group of people instead of a single individual, or of someone performing for an audience, be it an artistic or athletic performance, instead of a private citizen going about their daily life. If I was in a situation where I was speaking to a crowd, say, or dancing in public, I would have a reasonable expectation that someone might take my picture, and I wouldn't care. But registering a vehicle at the DMV? That is the act of a private citizen, not a public figure, and I think it's perfectly justified for me to be creeped out by someone taking my picture.
But you'll notice, please, I said twice in my post that I don't think it should be illegal, so your little sports comparison is misguided at best. I don't care to legislate politeness. I just choose not to associate with people who are thoughtlessly rude.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there IS a difference as well, between a large public gathering (fair, sports event, circus, etc) and a place of business (DMV, etc). At large events, public events, photographs are taken. I guess it's more normal to take pics in public of those who are performing/expect it somehow. Such as demonstrations at a fair, circus acts, baseball game, what-have-you. However, if you're at one of those places and takes photographs of individuals, it's good manners to ask. Yes, legally, you can take the picture. I don't think it should be illegal.
I don't know. Like the difference between a photographer and the paparazzi. A photographer will ask and not intrude in someone's private life unless asked to do so (documentary, etc). Paparazzi are the folks who don't ask, want to intrude, who take the kind of photographs we wouldn't want taken of ourselves.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, when I went to DragonCon this year, there were lots of people in costume, lots of pictures being taken.
Mostly, people asked before they took pictures, and nobody had a problem with it. I did hear one girl finally say, "That's enough" after several minutes of people taking pictures of her somewhat scanty costume. But mostly, a request for a picture was treated like a supreme compliment. People had worked hard on thier costumes, after all.
But there were a few skulkers -- people taking pictures of you as you walked past (which were probably blurry anyway) instead of just asking.
That seemed kind of strange, in that context, though I suppose there are some extremely odd people at most Cons. *shrug*
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which is why my policy is to approach the lovely women and say "Pardon me, miss. I noticed that you're looking enormously attractive and was wondering if you'd permit me to take your picture."
I spent half my trip trying to convince my brother to ask the breathtakingly beautiful Spanish girls he kept admiring exactly that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, I wasn’t directing at you, just a general comment. I agree that the guy taking a picture of you in line was strange and not polite. I was really just trying to give an example of how far you could take it.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) Indian women and take non-sexual pictures of them, then go home and "use" them, couldn't I? ( I don't do that!) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
