| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2005 06:01:50 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 06:05:46 PM · #2 |
| The guy who cam up with the idea to ban it must be Republican...good for him! |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 06:12:58 PM · #3 |
I'd say his wife caught him searching the term "upskirt" and he had to invent the bill proposal to get himself off the hook.
Seriously though, it's a pretty bad invasion of privacy and I guess something needs to be done about it everywhere. But then there's equally bad things that need to be dealt with as well on the www. Like for instance identity theft but there's still no laws in the US or Canada to deal with that issue either.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 06:27:06 PM · #4 |
OK, before I start, I'm posting this out of the spirit of debate and looking at all angles. I'm not for this type of behavior at all.
That being said, the line seems to be crossed when the photos are posted on the internet and not when they are taken. But wouldn't this be covered by model release rights? Can't the "model" legally have the pictures removed by not having signed a model release? Maybe I don't understand model releases enough.
To back up, I don't think taking such pictures should be illegal in itself. If someone in a low cut blouse leans over in front of me, am I supposed to look away out of fear of illegally invading her privacy? (looking away out of decency is another question...) How is that situation fundamentally changed if you have a camera in front of your eye?
Perhaps the line is crossed when technology is used to gain views which are not otherwise there. It's all a big gray morass though...
OK, before you hit that reply button, let's recall I am not for this behavior... ;) |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 06:34:26 PM · #5 |
"...pass a law making it illegal...and also for anyone in Maryland to post voyeuristic photos or videos onto the Internet."
Well, they're certainly going to have to come up with a new definition for 'voyeuristic' then...
voyeur: An obsessive observer of sordid or sensational subjects
sordid: Exceedingly mercenary; grasping
sensational: Outstanding; spectacular
Technically, we KNOW what they're talking about, but if it's going to be a law, there had better be some clear cut definitions ... or it's just not going to happen.
-----
EDIT: Imagine you live in Maryland...and 'obsessively' watch a snail on the ground, then a hawk comes down and sensationally picks it up and eats it...you're guilty.
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 18:35:37.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 07:37:10 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by deapee:
EDIT: Imagine you live in Maryland...and 'obsessively' watch a snail on the ground, then a hawk comes down and sensationally picks it up and eats it...you're guilty. |
...only if you take a photo of this sensational event. ;^)
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 07:41:41 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by deapee:
EDIT: Imagine you live in Maryland...and 'obsessively' watch a snail on the ground, then a hawk comes down and sensationally picks it up and eats it...you're guilty. |
...only if you take a photo of this sensational event. ;^) |
ROFL |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 07:43:25 PM · #8 |
So if I take a shot from the second floor of the mall, to get a crowd, or whatever "proper" reason I would be taking it, and I happen to catch on camera someone walking by who is wearing something too loose fitting, then I can be prosecuted?
It's already hard enough to take pictures in public places. I understand the intent, but I see problems ahead.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 07:46:51 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
So if I take a shot from the second floor of the mall, to get a crowd, or whatever "proper" reason I would be taking it, and I happen to catch on camera someone walking by who is wearing something too loose fitting, then I can be prosecuted?
It's already hard enough to take pictures in public places. I understand the intent, but I see problems ahead. |
I agree. However, when some guy rigs a briefcase with a camera and is caught placing it to get upskirt photos I think the line has been crossed. How to word any law/regulation is going to be tough.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 07:50:41 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Tom:
The guy who cam up with the idea to ban it must be Republican...good for him! |
I have no clue waht this is all about. But for the record the guy is a "D". Not that it matters. I'm a "D" and I think it is a stupid idea and would open up Pandora's Box. Pun not intended. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 07:53:27 PM · #11 |
I support the ban on unwilling/unwitting "Upskirt Photography"...what person in their right mind wouldn't.
Talk all you want about free rights. But if you put a camera in a woman's bathroom and take pictures of females vaginas and post them on the web. And you post pictures of my daughter.
I will beat the !@#$% !@#$ out of you...and post the photos of the black and blue bloody @$$ on the web.
No, I am sorry...this is not photography. It is a violation of another citizens personal privacy. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 07:55:06 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
So if I take a shot from the second floor of the mall, to get a crowd, or whatever "proper" reason I would be taking it, and I happen to catch on camera someone walking by who is wearing something too loose fitting, then I can be prosecuted? |
No, but if you place hidden cameras. Such as monitoring cameras. And then use the resulting photographs to post erotic photos of people. Then you should be arrestable or beat-the-crap-outable.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 07:59:04 PM · #13 |
I am just thinking of that recent case posted here where they arrested some guy taking pictures of "parts of people", plastered his name on the news as a perv, and then finally looked at his pictures and decided they were artistic and he did nothing wrong. (Sorry, don't have the thread link handy).
I've already been hassled with my camera once, and my name taken in for shooting a scenic from the second floor of a outdoor garage. These kinds of laws can easily be used as justification to hassle photographers with SLRs.
It could be any one of us at a mall or "festival" who is next, is my fear.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:00:45 PM · #14 |
Amen to theSaj.
Being a Marylander, I support this, and hope they pass it with the proper language. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:04:32 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I am just thinking of that recent case posted here where they arrested some guy taking pictures of "parts of people", plastered his name on the news as a perv, and then finally looked at his pictures and decided they were artistic and he did nothing wrong. (Sorry, don't have the thread link handy).
I've already been hassled with my camera once, and my name taken in for shooting a scenic from the second floor of a outdoor garage. These kinds of laws can easily be used as justification to hassle photographers with SLRs.
It could be any one of us at a mall or "festival" who is next, is my fear. |
This may be true Neil, but I think sometimes its pretty clear cut that certain photos aren't "artistic", i.e., photos on a camera photo up the skirt of a girl who hasn't given her consent; a camera hidden in a specially designed briefcase conveniently placed a woman's feet...
And his proposal aims at vouyeristic photos and videos posted on the internet. It's not really hard to figure out what they are, is it? Or what someone's intent was when they do that?
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 20:06:20. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:13:12 PM · #16 |
Voyeouristic photos - are usually zoomed up, cropped and focus just on the anatomy. And are taken of strangers without there consent.
There is a difference between such, and simply taking pictures that contain passer-bys. But zooming in on women's boobs as they walk by...is frankly, inappropriate.
And yes, i believe our government should prohibit such...seeing as they have laws against assault with prevent me from beating the crap out of said guy. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:22:31 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Voyeouristic photos - are usually zoomed up, cropped and focus just on the anatomy. And are taken of strangers without there consent.
There is a difference between such, and simply taking pictures that contain passer-bys. But zooming in on women's boobs as they walk by...is frankly, inappropriate.
And yes, i believe our government should prohibit such...seeing as they have laws against assault with prevent me from beating the crap out of said guy. |
The issue is there are already laws that cover the hidden camera issue and the like. The issue here is the ill defined law that is proposed. That does not mean that if you oppose such a knee jerk reaction that you condone or support such behavior. I just don’t want to see loosely defined laws on the books that can be misused.
And for what it is worth I would join you in beating the $%%$#$% out of the perp.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:35:48 PM · #18 |
Sometimes it helps to see the actual proposed law - this is a draft
//mgadls.state.md.us/pdf-documents/2003rs/bills/hb/hb0544e.pdf
The one key element in it is that the action must be with "prurient intent." For those who don't know "prurient" means unually sexual interest."
How anyone determins if that is the case is not in the proposed law. Guess that is up the legal people and the jury.
Beside that the draft could use some work. It defines "private place" as "a room in which a person can reasonable be expected to fully or partially disrobe and has a reasonalbe expectation of privacy.."
But the examples include restaurant, tavern, theater, sports arena or get this "another place of public accommodiation." That sounds just about like anywhere.
So the case in TX that was discussd here a week or so ago comes to mind. The legal beavers thought he had a "prurient intent" so they picked him up.
It looks as if those who wrote the draft tried to do something reasonable and solve what is a real problem - but I think the draft law still needs quite a bit of work. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 08:56:12 PM · #19 |
| I am already paranoid about public photo venues in a variety of settings. I stopped taking my camera to the pool this summer when it seemed to wierd some people out after a "sex offender taking photos at local pool" story made national news from here in NC and had at another time to try to explain to my 8 year old daughter why I couldn't take pictures of her and some of her 'tween age girlfriends without talking to their parents first. It's dicey buisness already with or without and new laws. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 09:00:57 PM · #20 |
Here's the thread referred to above: One bad apple is gonna spoil it for the bunch :(
I am a Marylander and I can pretty much guarantee that the proposed legislation will not pass, probably won't even come to a vote. Just a Delegate appeasing pressure from an outraged constituent.
I don't condone upskirt or downblouse photography. But I don't want a repeat of what happened to that innocent guy in Texas. Some things are very difficult to put into laws, and are perhaps best left unaddressed. Approaching the problem from an entirely different viewpoint, a more effective way to prevent upskirt & downblouse photos would be to regulate the type of clothing women are allowed to wear in public places. To me, both approaches are equally ridiculous.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 08:46:02 AM EDT.
