Photographer arrested at Texas Octoberfest gathering

[JoeFriday]

http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5086442/detail.html

the police are clearly spinning this story as a 'sexual predator' situation.. I'm rather concerned about this one.. particularly the police officer who says "You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person."

of course it's the police officer who arrested the man for taking photos in a public place, then searched through the photos he had taken, thus determining in his opinion that the photos were of a sexual nature

I'm fairly certain the police violated his rights a few times during the proceedings.. and by this cop's standard, quite a few of us in RFF could be guilty of taking photos of attractive women without their consent

 

[Solinar]

That's the wurst news story of the day.

 

[JoeFriday]

after re-reading the story, it mentions how he broke state laws by taking those photos.. I suppose it's possible Texas has passed laws preventing photography in public places.. I'd like to find out if that's true or not in case I ever considered going there

 

[Kin Lau]

I think it's just poorly worded. Notice the A _and_ B clause. You can take pictures of a sexual nature _if_ you have the other persons consent, or you can take pictures without consent but not of a sexual nature.

 

[zeos 386sx]

There is an interesting article on alternet.org titled "Is Photography Becoming Illegal?" by Susan Llewelyn Leach, Christian Science Monitor. It mentions a similar problem faced by a photojournalist in Texas who was stopped for taking pictures of POTHOLES!
http://www.alternet.org/story/22084/

To quote from the article:
"If you're standing on public property, you can shoot anything the naked eye can see, explains Ken Kobre, professor of photojournalism at San Francisco State University and author of one of the seminal textbooks on the subject.

What you can't do, he says, is use a telephoto lens and take shots through office windows or into private residences, where people would have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." That would be like eavesdropping or surreptitiously taping someone, he says.

But if a story is newsworthy and in the public interest, then taking photos even on private property is usually permissible, he adds."

 

[FrankS]

The way I read it was: if pictures were taken without consent AND used for sexual gratification, THAT is illegal.

 

[JoeFriday]

I thought it referred to 2 separate condition, but perhaps you're right, Kin.. maybe it's the combination that caused the offense.. that would be slightly less troubling

 

[kiev4a]

I would want to see examples of the photos (obviously that won't happen) before passing judgement. There's a big difference between taking a picture of a mom and/or child having fun at an event and zooming in on specific body parts.

 

[Solinar]

So much for my bratwurst joke.

In Texas it is illegal to take photos of a sexual nature in public place of business or any other public facility without the signed consent of those involved.

The two cases I know of were one a restaurant owner installed a spy cam in the woman's restroom and the other involved a gym owner who installed a similar device in changing room and three some moron with a digital camera.

Throw in the statute that forbids the possession of pedophile type photos and suddenly those swing set photos or kids popping down the slide at the playground open a second avenue of prosecution.

If the kids parents have their mind made up that you look like a sexual predator with a camera, look out. The wurst photos of the Dallas suburb's October Fest is the first case that I've heard of taking place in a public park.

 

[JoeFriday]

I caught the brat joke.. it was just the seriousness of the topic that overrode it

my concern about this, as solinar pointed out, that it's a rather subjective thing.. what is 'sexy' to one person is 'sexual' to another

 

[djon]

Happily that was only Texas. We don't have oppression like that in the US.

John in Albuquerque

 

[RObert Budding]

I was going through a subway gate in Boston a few weeks ago when a police officer stopped a photographer from shooting a pic of the area near the subway entrance. He asked her if she had a permit! I guess this means that terrorists will just resort to camera phones. Or maps.

Don't you feel safer now?

Robert

 

[Uncle Bill]

This is what I call a car crash story, guy caught snapping pictures of women and children at an Okoberfest celebration in the Lone Star State. The nature of the digital photos will be up for the DA and a jury to decide if it gets there. It is to the point the only children I take pictures of are relatives under full supervison of their parents and any women become part of my photos are north 18 to be on the safe side. Pedophilia is disguisting and should be prosecuted, however in the the rush as society gets in going total law and order will snag the odd individual who was not thinking, giving all of us a bad name. One thing is for sure I am in no rush to visit Texas anytime soon with camera in hand, nothing personal.

Bill

 

[Skinny McGee]

No Robert ,,they will have to get a permit..

 

[Skinny McGee]

This is me talking to myself :


You must not say anything on this thread .... You must not say anything on this thread.....

 

[jan normandale]

Who knows what is going on there. I recall an incident at the Toronto CNE and a man was behaving strangely. He was taking shots in a public place which were 'kiddie porn' in nature. On the surface it seemed okay but he was subsequently found to have more of the stuff.

I have also seen police throw the 'net' over someone by laying a list of charges to try and ensure one of them sticks.

I have a hunch there is a little of both in this case. Police (I'm not a cop or cop fan btw) most often zero in on people for a reason. Still there is a chill in the air resulting from these photographers. Moral... if it is in a grey area , be thoughtful and prudent about subject matter or get a release.

 

[dany_nyc]

This reminds me of something I saw a few years back. I was in Forest Hills at the US Open- I think that's what it's called, I don't know anything about sports - with a friend. Outside the main tennis stadium there are a bunch of other courts where the more minor matches take place. So, after watching one, my friend and I were walking and out of the corner of my eye, I saw a man crouching in the bushes next to one of the tennis courts, with a camera poking through the fence. He was way down, almost flat on the ground, shooting upskirt shots. At first, it didn't even register. I just kind of saw it, kept walking and talking with my friend, then suddenly I thought, "WAIT A MINUTE! What the hell?" We went back but he had gone already. I regretted that I didn't realize what he was doing immediately. I would have confronted him and had him thrown out. My point is, while I support public photography with almost no reservations, there is no excuse for creepy, predatory behavior.

 

[hoot]

FWIW, I find that openness, honesty, respect for your subject, eye contact and a warm smile will usually keep you out of trouble. We don't know how obnoxiously (or not) this man was behaving, but I would suggest that keeping up a clean image will go a much longer way than making sure to stay on this side of the law, which is mostly a matter of interpretation anyhow.

 

[cp_ste.croix]

Issues like this always make me pause. It seems to me that the same person who will loose their cool when you take their picture would happily snap away at the 'colourful, exotic' locals in whatever vacation spot they might choose to visit, assuming, of course, that they aren't so provincial as to refuse to travel...

The law portion brings to mind Utah Phillips relating a story of someone who's name escapes me, roughly paraphrased:

Your laws are useless judge, the good people don't need them and the bad people ignore them anyways...

 

[canonetc]

Interesting that invasion of privacy can apply to both private persons and photographers.
Shoot the ladies' undergarments w/o them knowing may be invading their privacy, depending on HOW the photo is used. And, taking my film, digital files or arresting me for "photographing" is an invasion of MY privacy, is it not?

The Texas law seems written to protect an individual's privacy. But horrible as it may sound, the larger issue is freedom of speech for any photographer (normal, pervert or whatever). I would also think that the photographer could sue the police or get his case thrown out of court because the cops did not have a search warrant. Well, he DID let them look at what he shot, but what right did they have to see his photos? The Texas law, I suppose. Whatever he had, he should not have let them inspect his camera. But, he probably, and wisely, did not want to visit the electric chair.

Another issue this brings up: do we "steal" something from someone who did not want their photo taken, or, whose picture we "took" without them knowing? Hmmm. It raises an inherent spiritual concern of the photographer: do we give to others, or do we take?
Is photography inherently "selfish", "expressive" or......what? I think the moral base is INTENT. But WHO is to decide my INTENT? The State? Uncle Sam? The "public"?

A photographer must develop a strong sense of honesty. And a currently un-legislated virtue of Common Sense.

Cheers,

Chris
canonetc