Man fined over topless phone photos

[Nicole]

I just thought some people might be interested in reading this article. I would hate for someone here to be fined or worse have their camera destroyed.

Never heard of this before myself.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11555328%255E421,00.html

[dooda]

Seems to me like if you're in a public place, you can get photographed. If you are going topless at the beach, what's the difference if someone is staring at you or taking a picture? (yes, I know that there is a difference, but really if you take such offence to that, maybe you just shouldn't go topless). What about all of the paparazzi in the US that take pictures of celebrities topless etc? I'm pretty sure that they don't get fined. I guess there are also issues that people can now email your picture topless all over the place and post it wherever. I still think that if you have a problem with this you shouldn't go topless.

We need to all band together and fight for our rights to photograph topless people in public places!!! PHOTOGRAPHERS UNITE!!!

[sheepie]

Perhaps our next outing should be to Bondi (Gary could scope it out to work out the best time to go!)

When did it become an offence to take photographs? I thought indecent exposure was an offence!

It seems strange that the number of places we can take photos now seems to be diminishing, but the number of cameras being sold is increasing. Will we at some stage get to the point of everyone carrying around a camera, but not being able to take it out of our pocket?

Admitably this case does seem to have merit, but where does it end. Am I allowed to go and take a 'generalised' shot of people on the beach (or even the beach itself) without being arrested?

Maybe we all need press passes?

[Matt. K]

A magistrate fines a guy $500 for taking pictures of topless women on the beach...but the TV crew that covered the story filmed topless women at the beach to illustrate the story! Hell! What's going on? If I want to take pics at the beach I can be charged for being a pervert if there is a topless women in my beachscape?
There has to be some clarification of the law here.

[ajo43]

I'm quite surprised at this one too. I would have thought that there is an element of consent when you lie on the beach topless.

Of course you would not be consenting to having the pics sold but if someone happens to snap a couple of shots then that is really up to them.

[sirhc55]

I suppose this is a very iffy point. I agree, that as photographers, we are being hounded more and more as to what we can’t shoot.

In this case the offender was using a phone with inbuilt camera (yeh right) and was probably perceived to be infringing copyright that every individual has over there own image.

If you go to the beach with a camera people can see that it is a camera, whereas a phone camera is like the old time spy cameras!!

Individual copyright of a persons own image has been proven in the courts time and time again - the mute point is if you wish to flaunt your body, then expect someone to photograph it. . .

That’s why I go to the beach wearing an overcoat hehe

C

[dooda]

The key is to know how to take the photo. Walk by faking a nonchalant conversation with your friend. Then suddenly stop nearby your target looking like you've lost connection. Put the camera down and fake a really confused face, while actually aiming and shooting.

I heard that they are putting mandatory click sounds in the phones for this reason, as well as copywrite. Some shops in the states are banning phones in libraries and shops so people can't photo the mags and books and then read them at home...too bad, it would be so awesome if we were allowed to photo literature with a crappy 1.3 mp camera and then process the photos at home and then read them at my leisure. What an awesome way to spend an evening. Porn was never so awesome as viewed through a 1.3 mp camera. Why do they always spoil our good time?! This was an actual article in the National Post. Lets not forget about all the time you save reading Dickens on your phone at your leisure, and not having to bring the book back to the library for renewal. Sheesh.

Edited: (I'm in a real funky mood this evening please take very little of this seriously)

[Matt. K]

But surely... the point here is that the man was charged with taking obscene pictures of these women. Therefore the act of being on the beach topless must in itself be an obscene act? So the women should also be charged?
I don't advocate sneaking around the beach and violating the privacy that these women probably are entitled to...but on the other hand I don't want to be afraid to walk around the beach with my camera wondering if all and sundry think I'm a pervert. These women, by sunbaking topless on the beach have to some extent diminished my freedom.
I hope this guy appeals the judgement.

[kipper]

When I heard of this on the radio today I immediately thought of gstark. Speaking of which, where is the devil? Wasn't him who was fined was it?

[Raydar]

When I heard of this on the radio today I immediately thought of gstark. Speaking of which, where is the devil? Wasn't him who was fined was it?

No mate !!!!

He would have been a long way’s off with the VR, just to be on the safe side

Cheers
Ray

[Nnnnsic]

What ever happened to public domain?

Mind you, I doubt a person would be in the same deal with an actual camera as opposed to a phone camera... hell, even an Instamatic probably wouldn't garner the sort of attention.

Phone cameras are given a fairly poor look by authorities since the whole deal about using them in toilets and such came into play. Mind you, he'd have to be getting fairly close with the bloody thing.

If I were in that situation, I'd be telling the guy I'm not taking pictures of his girl, I'm taking pictures of the beach... she just happens to be in the picture.

Mind you, I'm not quite sure why they have to destroy his phone.
We have this technology called "deleting an image"... what the hell is so wrong with the phone that they can't just delete his images? What did the phone do?

[Deano]

I thought indecent exposure was an offence!

I doubt you would get a decent exposure with a phone camera. What aperture would you use?



Cheers
Dean

[birddog114]

It's very strange in this world, i think we will hear a new laws or ban to use the camera on the beach soon.
Too many laws, and too many junk around made our life become very complicated. So our photography hobby may have a curfew applied to it soon.
Who do we need to talk to now? perhaps the safest way is heading to Mount Gambier and get our Big John to join our photo hunting

[gstark]

I first heard of this case about a week ago. As it happens, I was talking with greg B this morning and just happenned to make mention of it to him, without realising that it was in court today.

The guy in question pleaded guilty, but there was some initial argument over the merits of the case: the people in his photos are in a public place, and when you're in a public place, you are ... in public.

What's the difference if a Japanese tourist visiting the beach takes photos such as these simply because of - to him or her - the curiosity value of the subject? They take photos of our traffic lights because they're vertically stacked; I really don't see a difference.

Likewise any tourist from, say, Omaha, might find the toplessness of the beach occupants either offensive or curious, just because it's not something they would see at home. AGain, that would be adequate reason, for them, to take these sorts of photos.

And again, I'd have to ask where is the difference?

When I'm down the beach shooting, as you may have noticed, I'm shooting all manner of things: whatever piques my interest, really.

But I find this case to be extremely distasteful; ugly even.

I have some respect for the 'privacy" of the ladies involved, but only to a very limited point; they are in a puiblic place, and they can, and should, expect public exposure.

if they want privacy, what the hell are they doing at the beach?

[Matt. K]

Maybe they don't want privacy? They just don't want to be photographed.

[bago100]

Actually all of your arguements have merit and need to be out there in the fullness of debate. May I mention other areas where debate may need to occur?

School sports days and children anywhere
People anywhere wearing scanty or no clothing (Nude beaches) in public places
People with obvious physical / mental defect or deformity
People from different cultures and races
People in difficulty or tragedy(Car accidents / hospital casualty wards, on ambulance stretchers)
People in emotional pain and emotion

I can understand there is a difference between photography for photography's sake and photography for some kind of perverse pleasure where there is a victim and a respondent who gets his or her kicks out of their victims.

Maybe the difference is between "public nuisance" and "being in public"?

I suspect this might be the reason behind why the man in question was fined.

There has to be a balance between the rights or people in public places and the behaviour of people who deny people in public places any rights to a peaceful and hinderance free life. The emphasis here is on the word 'behaviour'.

Anyway, that's what I think and it's certainly something I'll think about next time I'm at the beach with a camera. General beach shot that happens to contain a topless woman seems to be OK, but photographing a topless woman on her own, without permission, seems to be the kind of behaviour that the law will not tolerate.

We live in interesting times!

Cheers

Graham

[BBJ]

All i got to say about the subject is ( i would like to see the pics) hahahahha. LOL

[sirhc55]

Very well put Graham

C

[Onyx]

From that news link, it seems it was the gentleman accompanying naked lady that objected to what the phone photographer was doing. It was he who called the police.
PP's gotta get a better lawyer. Sure, it could be construed that there's an element of morality that's questionable in photographing women lacking in clothing; but PP should not have plead guilty! It was not offensive public behaviour as he was charged with, to be raising a cellphone and pressing a button.

[bago100]

Onyx
What offence was he charged with exactly?

Also, why shouldn't he plead guilty. How do you know his lawyer did not advise him to plead 'not guilty'?

He got charged with something, said he was guilty and got fined.

Nothing wrong with that. Happens everyday in every court.

The debate needs to be about balance in my opinion. Let's take a different example to illustrate.

Someone pulls their pants down and reveals themselves in public. That's wilful and indecent exposure-pure and simple.

Someone gets their pants involuntarily pulled down by someone else playing a joke. Is that wilful and/or indecent exposure?

Someone reaches to catch a tennis ball and their pants accidentally fall down. Is that wiiful and indecent exposure?

In all cases, the naughty bits are exposed, but should each be charged and punished equally. If I did this, I would plead guilty to the first circumstance, but not guilty to the second and third circumstance.

Intention and balance in the public interest is the one of the factors law should consider.

If you are unhappy with a law decision, there are forums like this one for public discussion. You can also contact your local member and ask that he or she initiate changes to existing laws.

Cheers

Graham

[dimmo]

The NSW Government has also recently passed new amendments to the Summary Offences Act which make it an offence to film for indecent purposes, or to install a device to facilitate filming for indecent purposes. “Filming” in this context includes the recording or transmission of still (photograph) or moving (video) images. This offence only applies if:

- the purpose of the filming is to provide sexual arousal or gratification, and
- the person being filmed does not consent, and
- the person being filmed is in a state of undress, or engaged in a private act, in which a reasonable person would expect to be afforded privacy.

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/p ... enDocument

Obviously, if you walk up and take a close shot of a 'babe' with your mobile and you're licking your lips... heh... well the message is clear. With a d70 and zoom lens...

[darb]

maybe it was the intent of the photographer, ie sexualising those persons without their consent? ... and that they were the primary subject of the photos? to me taking a photo of a naked chick and sending it to my mates as "check this out" is sexual intent. A jap tourist taking an inadvertent photo and showing her family in a "hee hee oopsies lookj what we accidently got on film" is not ... and that is exactly the moral gray-area distinction that the court has made.

dunno what the legal side of it is, but i know if some dude was photographying my gf while she was sunbathing (topless or otherwise.) then id go snap his CF card in half, regardless of law.

being in public doesnt negate all rights, someone flashing you their private parts in an intentonally sexual manner is still illegal, i suspect so is photographing someone in a sexual manner. (legal side of this im unsure, but im just drawing a parallel that its alla bout the context of it.). If pants fell down accidently, obviously it would be clear, and even if it did wind up in court, youd have witnesses to provide to the court that it was simply inadvertent and not intentonal sexual display.

as itso happens, i reckojn the guy should be given a slap on the wrist and let off ... he apologised, it WAS just some "fun" for him and his mates, and he's accepted that he understands it was wrong etc. I think the penalty is a bit harsh, but not the labelling of the crime. (albeit smoething i'd probably have done a few years ago before my more conservative self grew through.)

[bago100]

Postscript:

I read where the court reportedly ordered the camera phone to be destroyed. The guy was fined $500 for the offence but to order the destruction of a camera phone is beyond belief in my opinion.

I suppose the magistrate had a reason for this part of the reported decision but what purpose is there in destroying something that works perfectly well, is legal and where the owner has valid legal title to?

Enlighten me please

Graham

[sirhc55]

There is one event in Sydney each year when a certain group of people are allowed to flash their intimate parts with police looking on and doing nothing about it. Oh, and I forgot to say, many thousands of others looking on as well.

I give up. . .

C

[dimmo]

There is one event in Sydney each year when a certain group of people are allowed to flash their intimate parts with police looking on and doing nothing about it. Oh, and I forgot to say, many thousands of others looking on as well.

I give up. . .

C

Yeah, except not only are they consenting to having their pictures taken, they would probably expect it! Maybe even be angry if it wasn't..

[sirhc55]

Now I know why everyone is buying 70-200VR etc - it’s so you can take those candids whilst running in the opposite direction hehe

C

[MCWB]

-the purpose of the filming is to provide sexual arousal or gratification, and
- the person being filmed does not consent, and
- the person being filmed is in a state of undress, or engaged in a private act, in which a reasonable person would expect to be afforded privacy.

(My emphasis). It's in public, a reasonable person wouldn't expect privacy on a beach. You would expect to be afforded privacy in your own home, or in public changerooms, but not on the beach. What about the paparazzi who take the pics of celebrities nude on the beach/on their yachts for New Idea et al., are they all going to be charged under this act? I doubt it, because of the 'privacy clause'. IANAL, but as the law stands, I don't think he did anything wrong. BTW I don't necessarily agree with his actions, just playing devil's advocate here.

[darb]

if they did it for playboy magazine, and sexual intent. then yes.

if its just a matter of fact, hey look how fat so and so has become, then probably not, though im sure i'd still be peaved about it ... you, and this, is a very very gray area.

however, imho, taking it for sexual intent, is outta bounds. Law etc can do what they like, if you took photos of my gf for sexual purposes, intently, focussed, id come snap your CF card in half. (and deal with the repercussions later.)

following in line with your thinking, that theres noting wrong with photographing a nude stranger, even with sexual intent obvious, then it wouldnt matter if the person was say, a 13 year girl? you would be kosher with it? I would argue youre not, and to me that conradicts youre main view that its OK for this guy to photograph her in a sexual way.

(ps, i think the penality is harsh and it shouldnt have got to court as its such a small breach of law, but i do agree that it is one, and if i were the BF of the chick, or if i were the chick herself, i'd be pissed {regardless of law mind you})

[Onyx]

As reported by the media, the man was charged with behaving offensively in a public place.

The act of holding a mobile phone and pressing a button, void of context, does not befit the crime he was charged with, IMO. If he had been charged with filming for indecent purposes, then maybe there are grounds to a guilty plea.

IMHO, the poor guy got caught red handed doing something he probably shouldn't have done, and due to his ignorance of the law pleaded guilty to a crime that did not describe his actions.

I'm not saying the actions of the defendant was okay or within the bounds of the law, I'm saying the charges against him were incorrect. eg. if I shot and killed someone in the street, I don't expect to get charged with driving whilst intoxicated. I expect to be charged with murder.

[darb]

ahh ewll fair point, he got charged with the wrong offence, or maybe there isnt a more defined offence so theyve interpreted the law as they see fit and applied it to him.

(as with any "rare" offence that doesnt have specific charge.)

[gstark]

dunno what the legal side of it is, but i know if some dude was photographying my gf while she was sunbathing (topless or otherwise.) then id go snap his CF card in half, regardless of law.

Let's ignore the legal side of this for a moment, and discuss the behavioural side of what you've said here.

Please understand that this is a personal POV, and in no way do I mean to attack you, but I'm viewing what you're saying as being very controlling behaviour: without giving us any qualification, you're suggesting that you would take a certain course of action because of (I presume) your perception of an infringement upon your gf's privacy.

As I said, I see that as being very controlling behaviour: doesn't your gf get a say in this matter? After all, she's the subject of the photographs, not you.

I would contend that, unless and unttil she asks you intervene on her behalf, it's actually none of your business. I would hold the same to be true for a spousal relationship as well, btw ...

But let's take a step back for a moment ...

You don't actually have access to the photographer's camera, viewfinder, lenses, etc, do you?

Any perception of what that person may be doing is merely that - your perception - and nothing more. Again - from a behavioural POV - you might be said to be projecting your behaviour (what you expect you would be doing were the camera in your hands) upon this other person.

As you know nothing of this person, their background, their habits, etc, any such supposition on your behalf is way out of order.

Again, I stress that these are purely discussion points, and not intended to attack anyone or anyone's motives.

Getting back to the legal side, while I don't condone what this guy has done, I don't think what he did was, nor should it be, illegal.

In bad taste? Possibly.

Stupid? Probably.

Offensive behavior? In whose eyes?

Were the images for sexual gratification? Given the quality of cellphone cameras, I have trouble understanding this part of the argument. There would not be anywhere near enough image quality to provide any means of sexual gratification, would there?

And I find it difficult to accept that any person, in open space on a public beach, can lay a realistic claim to a right for privacy while in that public space.

[darb]

if they werent for sexual gratification, why were they taken of only naked girls and sent to mates? why did he admit to it? (albiet to the wrong charge, on a pedantic level.)

Allow me to rephrase regarding my own girlfriend.

If i saw a guy taking photos of her expressly, for apparent sexual purposes (clothed or otherwise.), id be unhappy, id be unhappy because 1) i know my gf would be displeased, and 2) i dont think its nice, or right. I dont mean seeing a guy with a camera some distance off and thinking he MIGHT ... im talking about when its perfectly clear he is taking photos of my girlfriend, ive made that clear already.

What i would then do is confirm with the gf that shes unhappy about it, then I, or possibly we, would go to him, ask him to delete them nicely. If he refused, id probably grab his camera, rip out the CF card, smash it, and hand back his camera.

is any of this legal? no.

I guess i shouldnt be confusing my own reactions to a debate on the legal side of things ... the hypothetical ive put forward, and that youve replied to, has waaaaaaaaay too many "what if's" to be worthwhile exploring, so i respectfully bow out of it, ive said my piece. Obviously each case is unique and needs to be judged accordingly ... but in the case in the media (regardless of the actual charge.) I think that the guy taking the pics was in the wrong. (albeit punished a little heavily.)

[darb]

And I find it difficult to accept that any person, in open space on a public beach, can lay a realistic claim to a right for privacy while in that public space.

Not "privacy", just respect for common sense of what is and isnt decent. If two parties cant agree after an incident, then i guess thats where the big old law comes intoi.

Is it OK for someone to flash their genitals at you, or assault you, or steal from you ... providing its in public? Of course not.

THis is where we disagree, on whether the act of taking a "sexually motivated" photo of someone (once its confirmed it was sexually motivated), is exempt in public, or whether indeed its not exempt along with other liberties that remain, in public places. (the guy admitted it was, otherwise it'd have no net value to his friends.)

IMHO, morally, im with the conviction side of thinking.

hell, i was down at a resort last weekend, taking pics for them ... there were kids in the playground that i was shooting. i asked the mother expressly for permission. Id expect to do the same if my subject is in a 'sensitive' position. (ie, a child, or a nude woman, or whatever.)

[ajo43]

What makes this debate really interesting is that any number of totally reasonable people with similar morals will come out on different sides of what is a really fine line.

If I was at the beach and my wife was topless (unlikely to ever happen) and some guy was taking pictures either with a mobile phone or a D70 with a 400mm lens from 300m away then I probably wouldn't be too happy. But I would also think, well we are at the beach, this is a public place and if someone wants to take pictures of her get some cheap thrill then that is their call and a risk that my wife would have known about when she dropped her top in the first place.

Most of us saw the shots that Gary took last week. None of us was offended or raised this as an issue then. Why? What if one of those pictures was of our wife? Although I wouldn't be happy I would have to admit that she brought it upon herself. Maybe the reason we were not upset with Gary's shots was that we know Gary is a nice guy and not a pervert - just a camera enthusiast testing a new lens.

I worry about how regulated society is becoming and how little responsibility people take for their own actions. Isn't the point here that when you drop you duds on the beach you have to take responsibility for your actions. This is clearly different to a situation where someone underage does the same thing because they are not old enough to be responsible for their actions and should be protected by the law. Or when someone profits from someone elses image without their consent.

But where does this end. If it is offensive to take a picture on a mobile phone then it is offensive to take a picture on a zoom lens. If it is offensive to take a pic of a topless woman then what about a shot of a woman in a revealing bikini?

I feel that the guy who was charged was a bit of a perv who did something dumb. But he probably deserved a telling off by the woman at the beach IMHO he did not deserve to be wheeled out infront of the media to have his character annhilated.

I would be interested to hear some of our female members views (particuarly if they sunbake topless). PS: the court didn't order the phone destroyed. The guy asked them to destroy it as evidence of his remorse!

[darb]

personally speaking,

the difference is that i place this behavour in the same bracket as assault, or public display of genitalia, or whatever ... ie , its NOT exempt just because its in public place. (albeit no where near as far over the "not cool" line, infact very close to it ... depending on the unique situation.)

You do not, you feel that "well im in a public place, so i guess I can leave if i dont like it" ... thats essentially the difference.

i mean, there could be a time where there was a pro photog doing a general "beach babe" shot for Ralph or FHM magazine (youd expect that he would ask permission.) ... where she might have her top off ... id suggest that would possibly be OK with her. (or maybe not who knows.) Then there could be a situation where she's wearing her whole bikini, and no genitalia is showing at all ... but theres a guy sitting 10 feet away with a 200mmm VR lens repeatedly clicking and pointing directly at her crotch ... he'd wear the camera quicker than a d70 shutter ... Obviously it really depends on the situation, and perhaps, the country. In some countries showing breasts is about as "naked" as wearing a mini skirt and tennis shirt!



We could argue for hours about it, but its just opinion, and obviously every situation is unique, in what is already a very gray area, so its a bit hard to have a refined viewpoint on this subject , either way.

Ps, in all this i concede taht there are huge gray areas, and that we must not give in to Political correctness overkill. We seem to annihilate people for small offences, and let them off for the big ones !

[dooda]

Maybe they don't want privacy? They just don't want to be photographed.

Then they can enjoy the beach untopless. If they weren't topless, and this fellow was taking photos, what would the issue be? Would they have been so upset that he took a picture of a clothed person that they would have called the police and stood there till they arrived? I sort of doubt it.

When you're topless and in a public space you've become a point of interest. If you need to avoid it, then put a top on. (as an elementary school kid we used to talk about going to Australia and France where we heard that women wear no tops, it sounded so awesome, and the women probably looked like centerfolds)

[gstark]

In the case that was before the courts, there was no, to my knowledge, exposure of any genitalia involved; just breasts. The exposure of genitalia is not offensive, nor sexual gratifying to me; not in and of itself: it needs to be contextual. And ftr, I don't find nudity to be offensive either, but I guess you already know that

Matt's point, "Maybe they don't want privacy? They just don't want to be photographed." while well made, is well countered by Dooda's assertion that by being topless in a public place, they're actually becoming a point of interest. If you want to blend into the corwd, why are doing something to make yourself stand out from it?

But it all still comes back to the rights and behaviour of the photographer, doesn't it?

All other factors considered, he is still in a public place. The Japanese tourist standing right next to him may take photos, unhindered, of anything that he or she sees on that beach that he or she takes an interest in. Does the Australian citizen suddenly have less rights, on a public beach in ustralia, than a visitor?

Again, he was charged with, IIRC, offensive behaviour. As I said earlier, I find his behaviour to be stupid, but not offensive. Who sets the standards for what's offensive? The term "offensive" brings to bear a whole raft of subjective values, where one man's ceiling becomes another man's floor.

While there is very little that offends me, I find the constant double-talk of our politicians to be truly offensive; they treat us like idiots, but they don't get arrested for it.

I'm quite happy to accept that behaviour that I may consider reasonable, others might deem offensive. What I've found though is that the reverse, often, isn't true, and the best example I can think of for this is someone like Fred Nile, who wishes to impose his values upon the rest of our society. I'm perfectly happy to permit him his POV, but that's where it stops; his values are not mine, and he needs to learn to respect and accept that.

I think the way that this case was handled was totally wrong, but that's just my personal - and subjective - opinion.

But I guess that there are no laws against stupidity.

[kipper]

I dunno about celebrities being photoed on the beach/yacht. There have been heaps of photos of them being photoed nude on their own properties. Now that is an invasion of privacy!

[birddog114]

How's about man topless? is it an offence to take a photo of topless men on the beach?

[gstark]

How's about man topless? is it an offence to take a photo of topless men on the beach?

No, it's not.

And l;ast week, using the 80-400VR, I also shot some topless males.

[gstark]

I dunno about celebrities being photoed on the beach/yacht. There have been heaps of photos of them being photoed nude on their own properties. Now that is an invasion of privacy!

There's a couple of issues here.

Yes, they're within their own private property, but they're viewable from a public place.

Part of the reason they may have acquired the property in question was its vista (of the public domain) but that vista is bi-directional.

They certainly have the right to the quiet enjoyment of their property, but does that right extend to restrict the rights of others, not enclosed within their property?

I would hope not.

[kipper]

So on that point then because you're on your own property and can see them and they can see you, then it's ok to watch with binoculars at them changing in their house if they have their curtains open?

[bwhinnen]

So on that point then because you're on your own property and can see them and they can see you, then it's ok to watch with binoculars at them changing in their house if they have their curtains open?

IRC can't you be 'done' for indecent exposure / whatever the charge is if you do run around your house naked or do other things with the front curtains open to the public? I'd presume it's then a two way street...

Brett

[gstark]

So on that point then because you're on your own property and can see them and they can see you, then it's ok to watch with binoculars at them changing in their house if they have their curtains open?

While I'm ceratinly not advcating that watching them under those circumstances is acceptable behaviour, one might ask why they didn't close the curtains.

I don't necessarily see the mere act of watching as being illegal. Adding binoculars adds an element of intent, as does my 80-400VR, as would standing on a box to peer in directly through a window.

But if you don't want what you're doing to be seen by the public at large, then you surely take steps to prevent it from being viewed by the public.

[gstark]

IRC can't you be 'done' for indecent exposure / whatever the charge is if you do run around your house naked or do other things with the front curtains open to the public? I'd presume it's then a two way street...

Brett,

I believe that this may be correct.

[kipper]

IRC can't you be 'done' for indecent exposure / whatever the charge is if you do run around your house naked or do other things with the front curtains open to the public? I'd presume it's then a two way street...

Hmm....better remember to close the curtains next time I do that then eh

[Greg B]

I gather that the circumstances of the event were that the woman's partner/boyfriend collared the snapper and held him until police arrived. This suggests that he was fairly blatant about it all, and given that he was using a phone cam, it would be hard for him to argue artistic merit. His guilty plea was probably resulting from embarrassment at getting caught, and the forlorn hope that it would go away quickly.

I am guessing that he saw something that he wanted to share with his mates, and a combination of immaturity, youthful hormones and bad judgment resulted in him doing something stupid.

The worst part, in my view, is the potential impact on the rights of photographers (such as us) who wish to photograph in public without unreasonable restrictions.

[gstark]

given that he was using a phone cam, it would be hard for him to argue artistic merit

Well, how much artistic merit was there in the stuff I shot last weekend? Not that much, IMHO. A couple perhaps - the thre deckchairs images, for instance. But I was there with a purpose - to learn how to use the lens, and to see how it behaved under certain conditions.

That involved taking a number of photos of the various subjects that a particular situation presents, and I think that's a part of the key here: the yield of what I was shooting included a small number of these sorts of images amongst a vast array of other images of all manner of things that one can see at the beach, from dogs being walked, to surfboards and rescue boats.

The worst part, in my view, is the potential impact on the rights of photographers (such as us) who wish to photograph in public without unreasonable restrictions.

And I agree completely with this point. The problem with this case is that it has lowered the bar (IMHO) for what might be viewed as acceptable behaviour, and that is not a good thing.

Where is Big Brother when you don't really need him? Everybloodywhere, it would seem.

[sirhc55]

Gary I agree 100%.

When I reached this fair country in 1973 it was paradise, today it is still paradise tinged with some very heavy paranoia - if only George Orwell were still alive - forget 1984, instead look at 2004!!!

C

[dooda]

The laws in America are not sufficient to protect people from having their images exploited (celebraties especially). I think that there should be a law written in especially for public exploitation of ones image, and especially their families. Paparazzi gets paid big bucks for shots of a star with their daughter/sibling/parent. It's one thing to not allow a celebrity to live a decent life, its entirely another to exploit their family members alongside. It's sad that people purchase the crap. Celebs are always getting mad at the photographers, they should get mad at the people that are paying them--their fans.

As far as their private domains being viewable from the public, you'd be hard pressed to find a private domain that isn't accessible with Birdy's arsenal and a helicopter. I don't think that we should rationalize taking their photos because it is viewable from public land.