Illegal "Street" Photography

First of all, Texas is hardly "the South". Second of all, this is the sort of thing we in the South have come to expect from Yankee #&^%#$#. The most idiotic laws I ever saw were up in Portland, Oregon. Let's keep our no-brain prejudices off the forum and in the corner dive bar where they belong.
 
But it wasn't a "straightforward" peeping tom case in that the women were in a public space. I had always understood a peeping tom as one who peers into a private space.

But I do take your meaning, mabelsound - he was pretty clearly being salacious.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think what the law is getting at in this case is the use of technology in a way that defeats the common idea of common space. What if that camera had the capacity to capture your driver's license information one showed the barrista while paying for that latte with a credit card?

The other aspect of the law is how such images are used. No one calls 911 because no one expects those images to be used improperly. But they certainly could be. Now what if that identification flashed for a latte were sold? Even assuming one was never negatively affected by this anonymous transaction, would it be legal?

Earlier in the thread someone joked that he should've been using a rangefinder. Actually, based on the comments of Mr. Hemphill, that might indeed be the case.
 
I remember excellent shots of a nudist place by Eliot Erwitt.
Although I really liked the pictures they were a little short of "gratifiying my sexual desire"
But who can judge what is your intention?
what if I want to do a reportage on a strange (public) place where people walk around naked?
BTW, I think I now recall another event in Nevada where people are naked/disguised and seem to have great fun.
Ask me how I know (Hint: I never was in Nevada)
 
Beemermark said:
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!).
Click to expand...

That is pretty funny. You should have just gone down to the Frawley Stadium area where one doesn't see many Amtrak police. I was asked once to leave that same platform on transportation day. I had taken about a dozen pictures from the Septa platform, and wanted some shots from the other side, and was told I couldn't. Now if I can take photos on one platform, why not the other one?
 
That's where being a member of the fairer sex has its advantages in street photography. The men are flattered, and the women just smile at me. ;-p
 
Four Points to Please Weigh Carefully

Four Points to Please Weigh Carefully

Four points need to be considered here:

(1)-The Texas suspect, however odious the acts of which he is accused, is innocent until proven guilty.

(2)-The filing of formal sex charges against dissidents and/or slandering them by accusations of perversion is standard practice not merely in certain geographical regions but throughout the ChristoAmerican Theocracy of the United States. It is perhaps the most common weapon in the indigenous arsenal of oppression: many legitimate artists -- among them Edward Weston, the poet Allen Ginsberg, the publisher Ralph Ginzburg -- have been so victimized.

(3)-Police action against photographers of both genders and all ethnicities is actively encouraged by both the Patriot Act and the most anti-Bill of Rights political establishment in U.S. history, and is therefore at an all-time high. Indeed I have heard it said that if you are a person of color, merely carrying a camera in public can subject you to arrest. Here is an American Civil Liberties Union link that summarizes some of the most notorious cases:

http://www.aclu.org/search/search_wrap.html?q=photographers&imageField.x=21&imageField.y=2

(I can only guess as to how to post a link here, so I apologize for my compucretinism if the link is non-operational.)

(4)-Whether being in a public place makes one a legal subject for photography varies radically with the jurisdiction. In Manhattan, for example -- the one venue in the U.S. where artistic freedom even approaches that of Europe -- any photograph of people in public is publishable regardless of what the people are doing. In Seattle, by contrast, you can be sued for invasion of privacy if your photographs of people in public might be considered defamatory or even intrusive. Hence you can photograph without legal consequences the couple embracing in Central Park, while the same couple embracing in Green Lake Park is verboten: you couldn’t publish the picture without signed model releases. Indeed a major Puget Sound area newspaper -- the case was in the ’70s and I no longer remember which paper -- was successfully sued for invasion of privacy after it published the photograph of a grief-stricken accident victim; as I recall, the woman -- her face bloody -- had just learned the accident in which she had been injured had also made her a widow. In any case the court held that the fact she was in public -- even on a public roadway -- was no defense against the violation of her privacy. (This is probably one of the two big reasons there is no street photography as such in Seattle; the other is the region's domination by vindictively self-righteous Ansel Adams sycophants, zealots who reject social documentary photography as politically dangerous and denounce it as aesthetically irrelevant.)
 
Roland
in your first post about the law, this is what I read:

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;

To me, this "and" means that if you don't have the other's consent BUT you don't want to satisfy anyone sexual desire, you CAN ! AND means that both the two conditions must be met. (in this case the man photographing the topless women falls here) while I have to admit it's not that clear the second part.
 
"The filing of formal sex charges against dissidents and/or slandering them by accusations of perversion is standard practice not merely in certain geographical regions but throughout the ChristoAmerican Theocracy of the United States. It is perhaps the most common weapon in the indigenous arsenal of oppression: many legitimate artists -- among them Edward Weston, the poet Allen Ginsberg, the publisher Ralph Ginzburg -- have been so victimized."

Actually, I believe this so-called "arsenal of oppression" plays into the artist's hands ultimately. "Any press is good press," and controversy ultimately sells books and tickets to shows. And the fact that I can go into a mainstream bookstore like Borders and purchase a Maplethorpe book containing images of a model with a bottle up his arse sort of proves that the U.S. isn't nearly as theocratic as you believe it to be. Some parts are conservative, yes, but we are far from theocratic. Ginsberg and Weston are pretty major artists, and I don't know of any of their work that we are not allowed to consume at this point in time, not like in say, China.

"Indeed I have heard it said that if you are a person of color, merely carrying a camera in public can subject you to arrest."

I agree that authorities are more on edge about everything going on in public places since 9/11, as they should be, but time and again, what few wrongful arrests that are occurring are not being upheld by the courts. There simply is no written mandate from the government to arrest people of color with cameras – that’s rediculous. One can’t always account for what a lone police officer can do – they can pretty much do whatever they want, but once an arrest occurs, the arrested ends up in court, at which time justice is usually served. What racism people encounter from police is generally going to be a result of the personal character defects of the officer – the person would be racist regardless of his or her profession, not racist because they are a police officer.

“Manhattan, for example -- the one venue in the U.S. where artistic freedom even approaches that of Europe…”

Not really on point, but there are MANY more artistically free places than NYC, like pretty much the rest of the country. I agree NYC is one of the top US cities for viewing art, (God bless Cornell Capa for ICP) but this notion that Europe is more “artistic” than the US is crap, unless you’re talking objective facts like comparing government expenditures on art or something like that. And actually photographing in NYC? I mean come on - NYC is the most trite, hackneyed locale to shoot in the U.S., simply because it’s been done to death by both still and motion picture photographers. Not that someone can’t still find a way to produce good work there, but I am personally much more interested in artists working in places I’ve never heard of, exploring new light, people and locales than another portfolio of freakin’ NYC street scenes. And Seattle has plenty of street photography going on in and around it, I assure you. I mean, you’re fairly sure of your characterization of the “vindictively self-righteous Ansel Adams sycophants” (how many of them are there, and what organization are they with?) that apparently have single handedly stifled all traces of photojournalism in the Northwest region.

But to get back on topic, the original case cited in this thread is an interesting case, but it is about where the line is for personal privacy, as it relates to people photographing other nude people without their consent on public land. It’s a case worth discussing, and this peeping tom will have his day in court. This idea that we live in some sort of oppressive regime in the US that is slowly eroding our freedoms is just not the case. Yeah, authorities are touchier - I’ve had a few run-ins with police myslef while photographing since 9/11, I was even detained for 10 minutes while they checked my license etc., but I was polite to the officer, knew my rights and that was it. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, photographers appear suspicious to law enforcement, and this is a relationship we’re going to have to tolerate for a while. I would suggest that the World will reflect whatever values judgements you impose upon it, so I suppose if our country seems a police state to you, then it will be for you. I am still being an optimist and comparing our country to many others, even ones pretending to be democracies like Russia, and finding we are still very, very free to do as we please.
 
Last edited:
I personally, am looking for the perfect exposed Piano "Limb", especially a nicely turned ankle, in public of course.

I know of someone who just gave his P&S to his young son on the beach, and he quickly smiled at all the young ladies and snapped their "portraits". Yeah, it was in Europe.

We do certainly have an odd view of what any kind of skin means in the US. What is "correct" seems to change hourly and by location. For a country spouting freedom quite often, we just cannot seem to define it. We seem to alternate between paranoia and freedom. We do seem to be obsessed in a lot of areas our puritan ancestors would have no trouble defining.

What is just plain rude varies as well, I used to be much more assertive when I was shooting for a newspaper, in a working situation, but also got chased by cops on horse back for my efforts. Plain Clothes Police in the 70's would shoot head shots of people in the crowds, and lied about the whole thing.

I did try to consider whether I was being rude.

I love all the stock images on every TV network of "Fat" stomaches or rears, or thin ones for that, with the heads cut off, used for the weekly comment on the condition or lack of, the "average" person.

We also have the "consumer advocate" people who hound any "evil doer" for comments, right to their doors or their car, and then report they would not answer the door. When we could find nothing in research, we noted a "paucity" of data, which filled up a sentence.

Photography, or drawing, is invasive, if done by the Establishment, it is security.

To get a candid expression, you either find a subject willing to ignore you, or not know you are there. My friend Florencio in Mexico shoots wonderful street and environmental portraits, and he feels if you have expensive equipment, people feel you are an artist, cooperate, and about the worst thing that might happen is someone asks you for a tip.


The Equal Rights Amendment is law in Ohio, and a number of states, so the same laws that affect one affect the other, in theory, but people are not really doing the topless thing much, or I am hanging around the wrong places.


These days, people on vacation get a few belts, and soon the rest is myspace history, well, mom told me life is not fair.

I have topless shots of me, and my new woman friend waving at the camera, taken by her topless mother using my camera on the beach. Just a vacation snap from the beach in Greece.

If you get nude in public, well, you are in public, if you are rude in public, well you are rude.

Just where it involves the law is open to someone's interpretation.

The guy in the story seems to be rude and less than candid with the police, which may be his undoing, whether he is the "slippery slope" remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
italy74 said:
Roland
in your first post about the law, this is what I read:

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;

To me, this "and" means that if you don't have the other's consent BUT you don't want to satisfy anyone sexual desire, you CAN ! AND means that both the two conditions must be met. (in this case the man photographing the topless women falls here) while I have to admit it's not that clear the second part.
Click to expand...

Hi Dino,

I do read it like you, but I'm not a lawyer.

I posted the state law without judgement (and assuming it contradicts federal law), because it feels to me like an example of the many US laws that contradict each other and don't seem enforcable (depending on which city, county, and state you are in). In the end, if you get accused, the outcome will only depend on a court's decision. One of the more prominent examples where I live (CA), is the use of Canabis. But there are many much stranger ones.

To keep the humour, here is a list of funny sex laws in different US regions:

http://nerdnirvana.org/categories/jokes/dumb-laws

🙂

Cheers,

Roland.
 
Last edited:
JohnTF said:
I personally, am looking for the perfect exposed Piano "Limb", especially a nicely turned ankle, in public of course.

I know of someone who just gave his P&S to his young son on the beach, and he quickly smiled at all the young ladies and snapped their "portraits". Yeah, it was in Europe.

We do certainly have an odd view of what any kind of skin means in the US. What is "correct" seems to change hourly and by location. For a country spouting freedom quite often, we just cannot seem to define it. We seem to alternate between paranoia and freedom. We do seem to be obsessed in a lot of areas our puritan ancestors would have no trouble defining.

What is just plain rude varies as well, I used to be much more assertive when I was shooting for a newspaper, in a working situation, but also got chased by cops on horse back for my efforts. Plain Clothes Police in the 70's would shoot head shots of people in the crowds, and lied about the whole thing.

I did try to consider whether I was being rude.

I love all the stock images on every TV network of "Fat" stomaches or rears, or thin ones for that, with the heads cut off, used for the weekly comment on the condition or lack of, the "average" person.

We also have the "consumer advocate" people who hound any "evil doer" for comments, right to their doors or their car, and then report they would not answer the door. When we could find nothing in research, we noted a "paucity" of data, which filled up a sentence.

Photography, or drawing, is invasive, if done by the Establishment, it is security.

To get a candid expression, you either find a subject willing to ignore you, or not know you are there. My friend Florencio in Mexico shoots wonderful street and environmental portraits, and he feels if you have expensive equipment, people feel you are an artist, cooperate, and about the worst thing that might happen is someone asks you for a tip.


The Equal Rights Amendment is law in Ohio, and a number of states, so the same laws that affect one affect the other, in theory, but people are not really doing the topless thing much, or I am hanging around the wrong places.


These days, people on vacation get a few belts, and soon the rest is myspace history, well, mom told me life is not fair.

I have topless shots of me, and my new woman friend waving at the camera, taken by her topless mother using my camera on the beach. Just a vacation snap from the beach in Greece.

If you get nude in public, well, you are in public, if you are rude in public, well you are rude.

Just where it involves the law is open to someone's interpretation.

The guy in the story seems to be rude and less than candid with the police, which may be his undoing, whether he is the "slippery slope" remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

what a great post!
 
JohnTF said:
....................

If you get nude in public, well, you are in public, if you are rude in public, well you are rude.

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


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
 
I can't imagine he'd have gotten any images walking onto the beach or out into the water with a 50mm lens and snapping away. 😀 Yet that would have been much less questionable.

Sadly, how hassled one gets is most often dependent on what the photographer looks like, race included. It is important to remember that those of us in the US are never required to turn over camera, film or memory cards to anyone without a warrant, and that persons who are questioning you repeatedly or in a threatening manner are the ones pushing the breaking of the law. I explain myself and the law politely once, more aggressively the second time (if the situation feels safe) and end the sentence with an offer to call the police "right now". I've not called them yet. In fact I rarely need to explain myself a second time, despite my less than upstanding appearance.

This article does make it seem like the guy wanted the pictures to get off, but he did not have to let the Ranger search his bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom