Upskirt Photography, (or a voyeur and his art)

[Mumbles]

If one wants to take photos up a woman's skirt, one should need her consent to do so. Doing so without her consent, IMO, is a violation of her privacy.

I'd argue that this is true in general, if you wish to make a person a subject of a video or photo.

However, I'm not sure that it should be illegal. And I've certainly "looked up" the skirts of various women, who were not attempting to be at all sexual, but who were kneeling or sitting - either to take care of a kid, or just to rest, or whatever. I always considered the right thing to do to be to look away. Not because I was wrong, but because I wasn't a perv.

And that was my point. We are discussing a guy who is apparently taking photos of women wearing short skirts, sitting down. He isn't sticking the camera in between their legs as they walk down the street, but at the same time, again, there's exactly one noteworthy step at the Lincoln Memorial, and it's where King was standing during his speech in the March on Washington. There's no real doubt that he is taking photos of women's crotches, but there's also no doubt that a person (male or female) in a short skirt, sitting with his/her legs wide open, is...on display.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't know what these shots look like, but you do not generally have the right to prevent people from looking at you when you're in a public place. By extension, you also don't have the right to stop people photographing or filming you when you're in a public place (although this might vary in place to place e.g. I know it is not legal to sound record conversations in some U.S. states without all parties consenting).

More to the point, it is not legal to sound record conversations in any U.S. state without at least one of the recorded parties consenting. But it's always legal (in California, at least) to simply overhear a conversation between two people who don't know you can hear them. You (and some other posters) are jumping from the premise that there's a right to take in data with your own senses to the conclusion that there's a comparable right to take in the same data with a technological assist. That jump has no basis in U.S. law. Our legislatures are comfortable with making a distinction between what went into your head, and what went into your recording device and thereby handed you the power to copy what's in your head into a million other heads.

If you're making a moral claim rather than a legal claim that the one right implies the other, does this mean you also think there's a moral right to surreptitiously record other people's conversations?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know what these shots look like, but you do not generally have the right to prevent people from looking at you when you're in a public place. By extension, you also don't have the right to stop people photographing or filming you when you're in a public place (although this might vary in place to place e.g. I know it is not legal to sound record conversations in some U.S. states without all parties consenting).

More to the point, it is not legal to sound record conversations in any U.S. state without at least one of the recorded parties consenting. But it's always legal (in California, at least) to simply overhear a conversation between two people who don't know you can hear them. You (and some other posters) are jumping from the premise that there's a right to take in data with your own senses to the conclusion that there's a comparable right to take in the same data with a technological assist. That jump has no basis in U.S. law. Our legislatures are comfortable with making a distinction between what went into your head, and what went into your recording device and thereby handed you the power to copy what's in your head into a million other heads.

If you're making a moral claim rather than a legal claim that the one right implies the other, does this mean you also think there's a moral right to surreptitiously record other people's conversations?

If a conversation happened in a public place where there is cannot be a reasonable expectation that nobody could overhear you (or eavesdrop), it does seem to me that recording what you hear (for your own 'personal use') is not morally different enough from purposely eavesdropping to warrant legal restraint. Indeed, you could write down everything that two people say in an eavesdropped conversation, and that to me does not seem additionally morally objectionable above and beyond the act of eavesdropping.

But this does not mean surreptitious recording in non-public places would be acceptable, nor does it follow that distributing the surreptitious recordings gleaned from public places is morally acceptable.

People take photos without the consent of everyone in the photos all the time -- a huge number of photos are taken in busy tourist locations with people other than the main focus of the photos being in them. I can hardly imagine that's morally objectionable.

 

[arkirk]

I don't know what these shots look like, but you do not generally have the right to prevent people from looking at you when you're in a public place. By extension, you also don't have the right to stop people photographing or filming you when you're in a public place (although this might vary in place to place e.g. I know it is not legal to sound record conversations in some U.S. states without all parties consenting).

More to the point, it is not legal to sound record conversations in any U.S. state without at least one of the recorded parties consenting. But it's always legal (in California, at least) to simply overhear a conversation between two people who don't know you can hear them. You (and some other posters) are jumping from the premise that there's a right to take in data with your own senses to the conclusion that there's a comparable right to take in the same data with a technological assist. That jump has no basis in U.S. law. Our legislatures are comfortable with making a distinction between what went into your head, and what went into your recording device and thereby handed you the power to copy what's in your head into a million other heads.

If you're making a moral claim rather than a legal claim that the one right implies the other, does this mean you also think there's a moral right to surreptitiously record other people's conversations?

If you go to a public place and expose yourself, you can get in trouble for doing so. I am having a little problem processing the logic here. I do not regard myself as a pervert. Public places have special rules. I feel the issue is just plain weird. It is a social convention that there is something evil about being exposed. It comes from the Bible and is the source of all those fig leaves on statues the catholic church covets so much. It looks like the guy involved made a habit of taking these pictures. Isn't that merely a matter of him being a peculiar person? It wasn't that long ago we all got a shot of Britney Spears' pussy on the internet. I don't recall any outcry whatever about the photographers taking a pix of that pussy. It was a smudgy picture but nevertheless it was coveted by lots of her fans...and detractors.

The question to me seems one of why do we value these pictures either as evil or pleasing? I feel that what you do in public ends up being everybody's business. That is the meaning of public. I do not see a fixed moral perspective on this...or a consistent one in our society. I can see the outrage a woman may have if she thinks such pictures are a moral insult. Skirts are what they are...an incomplete covering. Men don't have this problem, not because they are men, but because they wear pants. Now if the women were molested, that would be a different thing. Not trying to piss anyone off, but really, there isn't much of an issue here.

 

[Jokodo]

More to the point, it is not legal to sound record conversations in any U.S. state without at least one of the recorded parties consenting. But it's always legal (in California, at least) to simply overhear a conversation between two people who don't know you can hear them. You (and some other posters) are jumping from the premise that there's a right to take in data with your own senses to the conclusion that there's a comparable right to take in the same data with a technological assist. That jump has no basis in U.S. law. Our legislatures are comfortable with making a distinction between what went into your head, and what went into your recording device and thereby handed you the power to copy what's in your head into a million other heads.

If you're making a moral claim rather than a legal claim that the one right implies the other, does this mean you also think there's a moral right to surreptitiously record other people's conversations?

If a conversation happened in a public place where there is cannot be a reasonable expectation that nobody could overhear you (or eavesdrop), it does seem to me that recording what you hear (for your own 'personal use') is not morally different enough from purposely eavesdropping to warrant legal restraint. Indeed, you could write down everything that two people say in an eavesdropped conversation, and that to me does not seem additionally morally objectionable above and beyond the act of eavesdropping.

But this does not mean surreptitious recording in non-public places would be acceptable, nor does it follow that distributing the surreptitious recordings gleaned from public places is morally acceptable.

People take photos without the consent of everyone in the photos all the time -- a huge number of photos are taken in busy tourist locations with people other than the main focus of the photos being in them. I can hardly imagine that's morally objectionable.

I don't know about US law, but here at least that's not the same thing from a legal perspective. Individuals have a right to their own image, meaning you can be sued if you publish (don't know about merely taking a picture) someone's portrait without their consent. This does explicitly not apply to photographs of crowds, where precedent has established "crowd" to refer to groups of more than 10 people - even when the indididuals are still clearly recognisable. Sometimes, though not always, the courts will grant exception if knowledge of the picture is in the public interest, such as when it shows a high-rankign politician suspected of corruption hanging out on his crony's and suspected sponsor's yacht, but certainly not when you photograph a random person off the street.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

men wear kilts and I have had the problem of cameras going up the back of mine -- thats a problem

That being said, there is nothing really sacred about my genitals once I've covered an concealed them and am out in public. If I sit wrong and my dick slips and somebody snaps a photo, that is my bad. If I am in spandex sitting with my junk pressing out, that is my bad. Let the harmless pervs have their fun.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

nm

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know about US law, but here at least that's not the same thing from a legal perspective. Individuals have a right to their own image, meaning you can be sued if you publish (don't know about merely taking a picture) someone's portrait without their consent.

What country are you talking about? Paparazzi take photos of celebrities relentlessly and they're published all the time.

This does explicitly not apply to photographs of crowds, where precedent has established "crowd" to refer to groups of more than 10 people - even when the indididuals are still clearly recognisable. Sometimes, though not always, the courts will grant exception if knowledge of the picture is in the public interest, such as when it shows a high-rankign politician suspected of corruption hanging out on his crony's and suspected sponsor's yacht, but certainly not when you photograph a random person off the street.

If people have a right to their own image, it means that I could be forbidden from putting up holiday snaps on facebook where there are people in the background who did not explicitly consent to the photo.

 

[Jokodo]

What country are you talking about? Paparazzi take photos of celebrities relentlessly and they're published all the time.

This does explicitly not apply to photographs of crowds, where precedent has established "crowd" to refer to groups of more than 10 people - even when the indididuals are still clearly recognisable. Sometimes, though not always, the courts will grant exception if knowledge of the picture is in the public interest, such as when it shows a high-rankign politician suspected of corruption hanging out on his crony's and suspected sponsor's yacht, but certainly not when you photograph a random person off the street.

If people have a right to their own image, it means that I could be forbidden from putting up holiday snaps on facebook where there are people in the background who did not explicitly consent to the photo.

No it doesn't, as I explained.

 

[Metaphor]

What country are you talking about? Paparazzi take photos of celebrities relentlessly and they're published all the time.



If people have a right to their own image, it means that I could be forbidden from putting up holiday snaps on facebook where there are people in the background who did not explicitly consent to the photo.

No it doesn't, as I explained.

I don't understand. What have you explained? Do paparazzi not publish photos of celebrities all the time? Are people sued for publishing shots of celebrities?

If I put a photo up on facebook of me with a friend, could that friend sue me because I published his photo without his permission?

 

[Jokodo]

No it doesn't, as I explained.

I don't understand. What have you explained? Do paparazzi not publish photos of celebrities all the time? Are people sued for publishing shots of celebrities?

If I put a photo up on facebook of me with a friend, could that friend sue me because I published his photo without his permission?

IANAL, but if you pose together for a photo, it is usually assumed that you'll show those photos to third parties, so I guess that counts as tacit permission. But he can withdraw that permission in which case, while you won't be liable for having published it in the first place, you are obliged to take it down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That seems right. If it's not illegal for a woman to cross her legs in a skirt out in public, and if it's not illegal for someone to see a woman cross her legs in a skirt out in public, then why would it be illegal for someone to digitally capture the woman cross her legs in a skirt out in public. It's the same photons--one scenario uses an artificial lens to capture them and the other a natural lens.

That's how I see it, also. I have a problem with criminalizing the recording of what we can perceive anyway other than in situations where privacy is to be expected. I consider banning it to be worse than permitting it.

The situation changes when you have to use augmented senses to get the information. For example, the use of infrared cameras to see through swimsuits. (Many swimsuits are virtually transparent in the near infrared.)

 

[Jokodo]

That seems right. If it's not illegal for a woman to cross her legs in a skirt out in public, and if it's not illegal for someone to see a woman cross her legs in a skirt out in public, then why would it be illegal for someone to digitally capture the woman cross her legs in a skirt out in public. It's the same photons--one scenario uses an artificial lens to capture them and the other a natural lens.

That's how I see it, also. I have a problem with criminalizing the recording of what we can perceive anyway other than in situations where privacy is to be expected. I consider banning it to be worse than permitting it.

The situation changes when you have to use augmented senses to get the information. For example, the use of infrared cameras to see through swimsuits. (Many swimsuits are virtually transparent in the near infrared.)

...or heavy zoom equipment to take pics of the people on the nudist beach from off your yacht, without exposing yourself as what you are, I suppose?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's how I see it, also. I have a problem with criminalizing the recording of what we can perceive anyway other than in situations where privacy is to be expected. I consider banning it to be worse than permitting it.

The situation changes when you have to use augmented senses to get the information. For example, the use of infrared cameras to see through swimsuits. (Many swimsuits are virtually transparent in the near infrared.)

...or heavy zoom equipment to take pics of the people on the nudist beach from off your yacht, without exposing yourself as what you are, I suppose?

I only consider zoom lenses wrong if the photographer wouldn't be able to go up closer.

 

[Jokodo]

...or heavy zoom equipment to take pics of the people on the nudist beach from off your yacht, without exposing yourself as what you are, I suppose?

I only consider zoom lenses wrong if the photographer wouldn't be able to go up closer.

He couldn't go up closer without exposing himself as the perp that he is, or without himself becoming identifiable. Doesn't that count?

 

[RavenSky]

If you put it on display people are allowed to take pictures. It isnt like he lifted up skirts or pulled down trousers, etc. Nor was this is a washroom or other private area. I dont see anything that should be actionable. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Much ado about nothing.

"on display"?

I really don't care how short a skirt is, what these men are doing needs to be illegal:







And in many places it already is.

 

[Bronzeage]

If you put it on display people are allowed to take pictures. It isnt like he lifted up skirts or pulled down trousers, etc. Nor was this is a washroom or other private area. I dont see anything that should be actionable. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Much ado about nothing.

"on display"?

I really don't care how short a skirt is, what these men are doing needs to be illegal:


And in many places it already is.

The standard against which "invasion of privacy" is measured is "expectation of privacy". I don't believe any lawyer would argue that a woman in a short skirt should expect someone to hold a camera in a position to see up her skirt. I know my 5th grade teacher did not see it that way at all, when the technology consisted of the mirror from a parakeet cage tied to your shoelaces. A lawyer could argue that the photographer's sexuality has not advanced much since 5th grade. As these things go, the person who gets off on invading the limited privacy which exists in public places, is one of the least innocuous of public nuisances. No one is physically harmed and nothing is stolen.

I think this is one of those reasonable limits on freedom that any civilized people recognize as necessary. I remember a story about a man accused of punching another man in the face. His defense was simple. He did not intend to hit the man. He only extended his arm as far as it reached, and since this is a free country, he was free to do so. The judge declared, "Your freedom ends where his nose begins," and found him guilty of assault.

As for the case of the girl whose patent leather shoes showed perfect reflected images of her panties, that case has never been decided.

 

[arkirk]

If you put it on display people are allowed to take pictures. It isnt like he lifted up skirts or pulled down trousers, etc. Nor was this is a washroom or other private area. I dont see anything that should be actionable. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy. Much ado about nothing.

"on display"?

I really don't care how short a skirt is, what these men are doing needs to be illegal:

View attachment 1262

View attachment 1263

View attachment 1264

And in many places it already is.

There's really no difference between sneaking up to a window and peeping with your camera in these pics. I agree these pics demonstrate an aggressive pursuit that is unacceptable. Additionally, I think anybody running around with their heart all aflutter, hoping to get an "upskirt" shot is living for the wrong type of reasons. It really is a matter of a runaway addiction to seeing something that you are forbidden seeing, when there really is no shortage of freely available freely offered views of this. The wearers of the skirts in these pictures clearly are not offering a view of their pussy or underpants and are being pursued by people who feel no responsibility to be civil. Neverheless, this type of thing remains a minor offense that should have consequences. The question is how much effort must the perv put forward, how devious, how invasive does one get before it becomes a misdemeanor? Is just leaning over a bit or turning quickly, or taking the time to focus sufficient to complete the offense? Just where does the act become a violation?

 

[Metaphor]

I don't understand. What have you explained? Do paparazzi not publish photos of celebrities all the time? Are people sued for publishing shots of celebrities?

If I put a photo up on facebook of me with a friend, could that friend sue me because I published his photo without his permission?

IANAL, but if you pose together for a photo, it is usually assumed that you'll show those photos to third parties, so I guess that counts as tacit permission. But he can withdraw that permission in which case, while you won't be liable for having published it in the first place, you are obliged to take it down.

In what statute or in what common law cases was this law decided? Can you give examples of its application?

 

[Jokodo]

IANAL, but if you pose together for a photo, it is usually assumed that you'll show those photos to third parties, so I guess that counts as tacit permission. But he can withdraw that permission in which case, while you won't be liable for having published it in the first place, you are obliged to take it down.

In what statute or in what common law cases was this law decided? Can you give examples of its application?

IANAL.