Photographing Crotches? (work safe)

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/01/2007 10:18:02 PM · #76

LOL Sorry the answer a question with a question ploy! :-P

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/01/2007 10:27:18 PM · #77

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

LOL Sorry the answer a question with a question ploy! :-P

Ha. Well I'd be interested to know what laws this might pertain to if commercial usage isn't an issue. If he could draw and did the same thing would he have broken some law besides a social one?

11/01/2007 10:29:12 PM · #78

In an Oct. 21 ruling, Florida circuit court Judge Karen Cole threw out a defamation case against two TV stations because she deemed the plaintiff -- a Jacksonville woman -- to be a public figure who had been subject to "substantial" internet debate.

Damn... ya'll can take pics of my crotch?

Wait, Jacksonville woman? Cindi?

Message edited by author 2007-11-01 22:30:11.

wavelength

Nikon D300

11/01/2007 10:33:21 PM · #79

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

You guys seem to be missing out that she's a celeb... she's by default not a private citizen. She is a public figure. She has purposely cast herself into the public eye and is not guaranteed the rights to privacy that you and I are.

Eh, I'd imagine if any one of us were contracted to do a model shoot of a certain nature, and were instead taking pics of said model toward other ends, they might not take it well at the very least. This wasn't a situation of public/private anyways, and this wasn't a "news" reporter. Intent has a little to do with things also.

I'm sure her agent who brokered the deal might be able to give details of the contract, but who knows if this might be worth of a case.

Still, doesn't do good things for Canon's PR, regardless of legality.

11/01/2007 10:37:00 PM · #80

I doubt it'll affect Canon much... it's not all that scandalous compared to other celeb "events".

Either way, I'm rather disappointed with the reporting that came from the original article... we really don't have enough details to be having a good debate. And the article is very biased.

Message edited by author 2007-11-01 22:38:57.

11/01/2007 10:38:09 PM · #81

Originally posted by wavelength:

Still, doesn't do good things for Canon's PR, regardless of legality.

Very True...

11/01/2007 10:39:31 PM · #82

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

I think there is a bigger question that affects all.

Is there an expectation of privacy in public?

No.

Many people may think they should have a right to privacy in public, but, the courts would not agree.

11/01/2007 10:40:47 PM · #83

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
So is there an expectation of privacy in the workplace?

I think celebs can expect to lose most of their privacy. It's just part of the gig.

Anyone want to trade a few million dollars for the sanctity of my life?

Celebs have all the same privacy rights as any other person.

11/01/2007 10:45:25 PM · #84

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I think there is a bigger question that affects all.

Is there an expectation of privacy in public?

No.

Many people may think they should have a right to privacy in public, but, the courts would not agree.

I knew you could not resist my bait. :-P

And I knew that I was just bringing another angle to the discussion. :-)

So can this photo have any effect in this wrongful termination suit? Does it prove anything? (I mean besides he is a perv.)

Message edited by author 2007-11-01 22:46:55.

smardaz

11/01/2007 10:49:20 PM · #85

Part of the conversations in this thread makes me think of one of Dave Chappelles stand up routines:

"Woman dresses sexy with everything hanging out at the club and guys stare and come on to her and she says 'HEY! just because I am dressed this way does NOT mean I am a prostitute!' Thats like me standing on the street in a policemans uniform and when someone runs to me asks for help I say 'HEY! just because I am dressed this way does NOT mean I am an officer!"

wavelength

Nikon D300

11/01/2007 10:49:36 PM · #86

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Celebs have all the same privacy rights as any other person.

Not in public situations they don't, at least from any stories that I know.

The thing about this case is really about two things:

1 - Is the nature of the situation considered public?

2 - Is the nature of the photos taken in such a way as to be pornographic?

I think if #2 trends toward the graphic side of things, their CEO is (or should be) in hot water. Canon ads are usually pretty tame though, so I can't imagine how that would be the case.

Oh, and I confused things (I think a few others might have also), the CEO was from the Ad agency, not Canon.

11/01/2007 10:51:30 PM · #87

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
I think there is a bigger question that affects all.

Is there an expectation of privacy in public?

No.

Many people may think they should have a right to privacy in public, but, the courts would not agree.

I knew you could not resist my bait. :-P

And I knew that I was just bringing another angle to the discussion. :-)

So can this photo have any effect in this wrongful termination suit? Does it prove anything? (I mean besides he is a perv.)

All it does is help establish that the plaintiff is telling the truth about the CEO's perversion.

11/01/2007 10:53:00 PM · #88

Defenses To Privacy Suits

Several defenses are available to photographers and news organizations accused of invasion of privacy.

If the subject of the photograph has no reasonable expectation of privacy, then no invasion of privacy is possible. Photographs taken in public places generally are not actionable. Photos of crimes, arrests and accidents usually are considered newsworthy and immune from privacy claims.

Public figures, who voluntarily expose themselves to scrutiny, waive much of their right to privacy.

//www.rcfp.org/photoguide/intro.html

11/01/2007 10:54:56 PM · #89

Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Celebs have all the same privacy rights as any other person.

Not in public situations they don't, at least from any stories that I know.

Yes, they do.

If, for some bizarre reason the paparazzi decided to follow you around in public, constantly snapping you, there's nothing, legally, that you could do about it. No more than Britney or Paris or Lindsay can.

wavelength

Nikon D300

11/01/2007 10:55:29 PM · #90

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I think on a closed set shoot, one might expect privacy. Why are you so hell-bent on describing this as a public situation?

11/01/2007 11:01:02 PM · #91

Originally posted by wavelength:

so hell-bent on describing this as a public situation?

I'm not... I'm just stating that she is a public figure and photos of her are not so much subject to privacy rights as say a voyeuristic photo of Sher (our Sher, not the musician).

Again, I emphasize that we have not seen Exhibit B or even a description of it. From that very biased news piece, you get very little actual fact about the situation.

For all we know the shot may be a full body shot and the guy is getting rail-roaded to "protect" Maria or Canon. Or since the OP called him a perv... it may not be about perversion but a want-to-be paparazzi seeking a bit of extra money. Or it may be a 2MP crop from a 8MP shot.

I'd be interested in seeing more details.

I will add this:
No matter the situation, his lawyers will likely use these very same privacy laws. Not to prove him not a perv, but to prove that he broke no law.

Message edited by author 2007-11-01 23:04:48.

11/01/2007 11:07:36 PM · #92

Originally posted by Chinabun:

Pervs

/me wonders if she was baiting you pervs ;-)

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) for Nikon

11/01/2007 11:10:55 PM · #93

Originally posted by wavelength:

I think on a closed set shoot, one might expect privacy. Why are you so hell-bent on describing this as a public situation?

Well the nydailynews said this

"The alleged snapshot of Sharapova was taken at a tennis center in Key Biscayne, Fla., while she was playing tennis. It is attached to Biegel's complaint as Exhibit B."

So I guess it is public but they could be wrong.

levyj413

Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max

11/01/2007 11:30:13 PM · #94

Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:

Im so proud of my daughter, the cheerleader, did i menton these girls are in HIGH SCHOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Errr ... note that's just Jimbo's link language above; the video isn't his daughter.

Jimbo, I disagree with most of what you've said so far, and your attitudes about what children should see are far more conservative than I feel. But wow, that last one, I have to agree with you: it really isn't appropriate.

Still, the mischievous side of me has to ask: how many times did you watch it to be sure you were truly, fully aware of how bad it was? ;)

Message edited by author 2007-11-01 23:30:51.

Jimbo_for_life

Olympus E-500 EVOLT

Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital ED

11/01/2007 11:53:46 PM · #95

hehe. after i seen her kick her leg around the people flashing her.... and then she was grinding the air:P one time lol actually like 10 seconds into it:P

Chinabun

Canon PowerShot SD990 IS

11/02/2007 06:54:38 AM · #96

I was calling everyone in the article a Perv. And yes, i'm a comedian not a politician :)

Sometimes I wish I was a man........

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Chinabun:
Pervs

/me wonders if she was baiting you pervs ;-)

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

11/02/2007 11:04:20 AM · #97

Originally posted by wavelength:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Wait, it says a federal suit "U.S. headquarters on Fifth Ave"
nydailynews

Maybe it's not moot. So is there an expectation of privacy in the workplace?

Actually doesn't the photo in question have to be used in some capacity for it to run afoul of any privacy laws unless of course while taking the photo she was subjected to physical/mental harm?

So, some perv could become a store manager at the gap and install secret video cameras in the changing rooms and have no legal liability? Doesn't seem quite right to me.

Yes, the call them "security cameras" and say they are to prevent shoplifting.

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

11/02/2007 11:11:31 AM · #98

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Jimbo_for_life:
but, the woman that plays tennis, has a choice of what to wear... just like the man,

Not a big tennis fan. So they can choose to wear shorts if they want even at Wimbledon?

See //sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/andrew_lawrence/09/07/open.fashion/index.html

frisca

Nikon D70

11/02/2007 12:58:29 PM · #99

i think its really distasteful that any woman who is legitimately offended by something a man thinks is no big deal, is labelled as "unreasonable" and "making a big deal about nothing".

That she was there to have her photo taken for a canon ad, in whatever outfit was picked out for the shoot does not mean that some creep with a pocket camera can take surrepitious photos of her crotch without her consent.

Lots of women wear short(er) skirts, that, if one were to stand behind them on an escalator and hold their camera low, a photo of under their skirt could be taken. They are in public, and it doesn't matter if they always dress this way or don't wear underwear routinely, its a crime in Canada and I suspect its not exactly acceptable behaviour in the US.

Privacy rights are the same for celebrities as they are for "regular" people. Britney steps out of a car with nothing on under her skirt and the normal observer can see her business, and someone takes a photo... that is not at all analogous to this situation, even IF Maria Sharpova wears shorts skirts to play tennis or markets herself as a sexy symbol.

I'm still ashamed of some of the men who have posted here.