Illegal "Street" Photography

ruben said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
FallisPhoto said:
The Supreme Court ................legally binding.
Click to expand...


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
 
ruben said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
ruben said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ruben said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
 
JohnTF said:
................

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.

..............
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Post 9/11 Photopolitical Realism

Post 9/11 Photopolitical Realism

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.
 
Ruben said:
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.
Click to expand...


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