Illegal "Street" Photography

hjfischer

hjfischer

Texas Rangerfinder
Local time
3:54 PM
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
132
Location
Dripping Springs, TX USA
View My Gallery
Hiding behind a tree and photographing topless women on a beach is NOT street photography.

Just another old pervert with a camera.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

See also http://www.dumblaws.com

Cheers,

Roland.
 
ferider said:
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.
Click to expand...


See also http://www.dumblaws.com
Click to expand...

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?
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
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 😉
 
Chris101 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!).
 
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 for photographers
 
Last edited:
Chris101 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. 😀

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.
 
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.
 
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"
 
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".
 
from the article said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


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?
 
M C H said:
It does raise an interesting question: does one give up all rights to privacy when in a public space?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
mabelsound said:
Most, I think. But this does seem like a pretty straightforward peeping tom case.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom