Man fined over topless phone photos

[Nnnnsic]

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.

Does one really need artistic merit to take a photo?

I'm not sure if anyone does. You take one because you can.
It's intent may not be for any purpose but just to take it, to have something to look at which will spark the memory of the day.

While I don't defend what the guy did, and I still think that he'd have to have been pretty close to do it (as phone cameras, even with zoom, would almost force him to shoot from a close up position), why isn't he allowed to shoot randomly on his camera for whatever reason?

I used to shoot randomly with my phone camera just because I could... is this telling me now that I'm not allowed to... and are the rights from public domain just fading away?

[MHD]

I think the law should (and usually does) concentrate on what you do with the image...

taking a picture is one thing.. publishing it all over the country is another

[jdear]

I had to laugh at this story.
was it not that the guy saw the mug next to the babe before he "subtlely" shot her? ([in a high pitched teenage voice] erm excuse me beefcake, can you please shove over a lil bit while i take a photo of your topless girl - maybe you could hold this reflector... erm there for me... perfect!)

Earlier this year on my honeymoon, i visited sea world - G. Coast. To my memory, a sign at the mens and ladies toilet entries said something like "no mobile phones" It didnt say anything about cameras. (i freely took my camera in for the mere desire of not leaving it outside to be swiped) Was sea world fearing someone would maybe take a business call while on vacation, and thus spoil their overall holiday RnR experience? I think not.

no one of the sea world team seem to accost some older man, sitting by the side of the younger peoples pool, trying to subtely take photos with his digital camera from waist level.

from my limited (id like to keep it that way) experience of mobile phone photography, to even get a good photo should merit some kind of award.
this guy should be rewarded for his valiant attempt to photograph the opposite sex with todays worst camera technology.

He would have been better off doing the job properly, hiring an apartment - beachside location, buying a field spotting scope (40-60x) getting a d70, and scope attachment, and then in the privacy of his own apartment shooting away!

Now heres a question, if you are fully self contained in your own house / unit, and you take photos from within it, outward, no part of your equipment sticking out into public domain, are you not free to take photos of whatever you want?

JD

[sirhc55]

ACA recently had the case of the schoolgirl who had some photos taken of her by a fellow student that were ‘sexy’ - the photographer then put them on the web without her consent.

In this case it went the other way because this young lady has now been offered modelling work and has been photographed in a studio by a professional photographer. BTW she is very pretty and I am sure the future will be quite profitable for her by someone doing the ‘wrong’ thing.

Who knows in this mad world. . .

C

[MHD]

hehehe... yes... just sit up on a balcony with the 200-400VR + 2x teleconverter and get full frame nipple

thats 800mm which on a D70 gives a FOV equiv to a 1200mm now that is a telephoto!

[MHD]

ACA recently had the case of the schoolgirl who had some photos taken of her by a fellow student that were ‘sexy’ - the photographer then put them on the web without her consent.

In this case it went the other way because this young lady has now been offered modelling work and has been photographed in a studio by a professional photographer. BTW she is very pretty and I am sure the future will be quite profitable for her by someone doing the ‘wrong’ thing.

Who knows in this mad world. . .

C

Mad world= Litigous society

People wanting to use the courts to make a quick buck

[darb]

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)

intent, intent, intent. (where obvious.)

As i pointed out, if the girl wasnt naked, but a guy was sitting 10 feet away with a 200mm VR taking shot after shot, zoomed in on her crotch, trying to get a perfect shot, then id find that just as offensive, as him clicking away at her breasts, and in the same class as him showing his genitals to me.. though of course not as serious.

The whole level of debate is really moot, and pedantic, it utterly depends on the situation at hand, and there are MILLLIONS of hypothetical what-ifs that would change mine, and others, opinion on it... so arguing with the intent of establishing one anothers polished, and final, opinionated viewpoints on this subject, is a complete waste of time. (and that is why judges have discretion.)

IMHO, judge used discretion, deemed he was out of line, and punished him. If it was a jap tourist who inadvertently snapped a shot, would she be done? no, the intent wasnt there, and that is clear. (albeit too harshly imho, and apparently with the wrong charge.) His best bet would have been to deny deny deny, and argue he was just taking a beach shot. Then it would have been pretty hard for the judge to prove his intent, and would probably get off.

[gstark]

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.

I think that, with relatively few exceptions, the concept of using aircraft for invading someone's privacy is perhaps a bit over the top.

But (so-called) celebrities - who are certainly entitled to their privacy - sometimes go to great lengths to protect it.

Or maximise their earning potential from it: look no furthr than Russell Crowe, who went to great lengths to keep papparrazzi away from his wedding, only to release (for commercial gain) certain "official" images for publication. And he did much the same when their first child was born.

I personally couldn't give a fart about what celebrities do; as I just said, they're entitled to their privacy, and when it comes down to it, why do I care what colour they dyed their hair, or that they had a baby, or that x has stopped dating y because she's now screwing z?

It's simply not important!

So, the celebrity perspective is, to my mind, absolutely irrlevant and a total non-issue.

So, how private is a private domain? As private as you care to make it.

But we digress: this guy was in the public domain, and the people whose images he was shooting were also in the public domain.

I keep coming back to the question: if you are in a very public place, (un-)dressed to a point where you might be likely to draw additional attention to yourself, how much privacy are you really seeking or entitled to?

If you're in a situation where clearly people can exercise their voyeuristic behaviour upon you (whether that's good or bad is irrelevant) then perhaps you need to accept that this behaviour might occur. If that bothers you, go elsewhere where there may be a greater level of privacy, or don't behave in a manner that can create this reaction.

I'm not yet convinced that that a person in a public place has much of a claim for privacy.

[Onyx]

Yeah Chris, I remember that. The "Tahitian Temptress", aka. Francesca something-or-other. She's now the face of Maserati automobiles... is it strange that I ended up being one in the email circulation of those pictures?! I feel dirty for somehow being 'linked' to that scandal.

[jdear]

this http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text11-10-2004-61487.asp says that the man was grabbed by the throat by the girls boyfriend. A nasty surprise for his efforts. (note to self, dont talk on a mobile whilst walking amongt topless women on the beach)

"Police won't tolerate incidents of this kind. While it's a personal choice for female sunbathers to sunbathe topless ... this type of incident is clearly an invasion of one's privacy," said Detective Inspector Peter Thorne.

Funny thing is, i havent heard of the woman objecting thus far, its only been the girls boyfriend.
JD

[darb]

gstark : here's the crux, and i give this with a disclaimer that it really depends on the situation, so a polished viewpoint on this is futile, but i continue ...

You think that because she's got her top off in public, she forfeits her right to privacy. Whilst I agree (ie frmo people watching her.), i dont believe it forfeits her right to respect, and common decency. I consider someone flashing themselves, assaulting, or intently taking sexually orientated photos of her without consent, all to be in the same catagory, and i dont believe theyre exempt. (even clothed in bikini, and zooming in on a crotch.) Much the same if a guy sat there and whacked himself off, its the same boat , IMHO

Yes, there are limits, and common sense discretion is applicable in any ruling. (and indeed in my personal opinion.) Likewise if there's dispute over whether the sexual intent was there or not, then that is why we have a judicial with discretion.

That is why this debate can not end, it can only be argued about for eons about differing hypotheticals (some of them extremely tough.).

ps, its been put across that some agree he was out of line, but that its not illegal. "illegal" is on the term used to describe a breach of law. Laws are established aroud what people think is and isnt out of line. I find it a tad weird that one can assert that he was in the wrong, but that when a law can be successfully applied in line with that, one doesnt agree with it. (not talking about the discussion on the "wrong" charge being used, i mean one being used at all.)

FWIW, and as ive said. The case in point really was pretty close to the wire ... a slap on the wrist and the embarassment he suffered on the beach infront of all would have been enough, it shouldnt have got to court. I dont agree with the harshness of penalty.

[gstark]

You think that because she's got her top off in public, she forfeits her right to privacy. Whilst I agree (ie frmo people watching her.), i dont believe it forfeits her right to respect, and common decency.

And I agree completely. Every person has a right to respect and to be treated with common decency.

But in a public place, as long as I'm respecting her rights to be respected and be treated with common decency, does that then also deny me my rights within that same public place?

I'm not suggesting that I should enjoy any greater rights entitlement than others might, but equally, should they enjoy their's to my disadvantage?

If I'm at a public beach and exercising due respect to others, why can I not therefore take photos of what I can see at that public beach?

If there are two people subathing adjacent to one another, one topless, the other not. Let's be blatantly sexist in this example - the topless one looks like Amanda Vanstone, while the other looks somewhat more attractive. That wouldn't be hard, of course, but in this instance, and remember, I'm being sexist for this example, the last thing I might want is an image of a topless Amanda Vanstone, yet because of the proximity of the two subjects, I have no choice.

Where is the difference here?

I consider someone flashing themselves, assaulting, or intently taking sexually orientated photos of her without consent, all to be in the same catagory, and i dont believe theyre exempt. (even clothed in bikini, and zooming in on a crotch.)

While I don't find the flashing etc to be offensive, I'm trying to understand why someone might do this?

its been put across that some agree he was out of line, but that its not illegal. "illegal" is on the term used to describe a breach of law. Laws are established aroud what people think is and isnt out of line. I find it a tad weird that one can assert that he was in the wrong, but that when a law can be successfully applied in line with that, one doesnt agree with it. (not talking about the discussion on the "wrong" charge being used, i mean one being used at all.)

I think what he did was stupid. Not illegal.

I don't think you can - nor should you - legislate against stupidity.

I do think this case should have, and could have, been far better handled by other means.

...

And what of the tv news reports yesterday (I missed these myself; I'm only going on hearsay) whereby they apparantly showed images of bare breasted ladies at the beach, as a part of their coverage of this story?

If what this fool did at Coogee was wrong - and perhaps (as some might suggest) should have been illegal, surely the news coverage was even moreso?

[gstark]

But wait, there's more.

In an entirely unrelated story, the case of the Tara Girls' School student being raped while on a school excursion to Italy was settled out of court yesterday.

The relevant point (for our discussion here) is that the defence attorney raised as evidence secret photos of the student in question, taken of her in a bar at Broadway in Sydney, wearing a short skirt.

The defence attorney attempted to question the girl's morals and self esteem by making comments about what she was wearing and how she was seated, making reference to these photos that had been secretly taken of her, whilst she was in a bar.

Is the bar a private or a public place?

If those photos can be used as evidence in a high profile legal case - with no question whatsoever as to the legality of how and where those images had been made - then where does that leave the guy at Coogee with the cellphone camera?

[darb]

You think that because she's got her top off in public, she forfeits her right to privacy. Whilst I agree (ie frmo people watching her.), i dont believe it forfeits her right to respect, and common decency.

And I agree completely. Every person has a right to respect and to be treated with common decency.

But in a public place, as long as I'm respecting her rights to be respected and be treated with common decency, does that then also deny me my rights within that same public place?
I dont really understand your point. But what "right" does respecting hers, take away from you? Assuming it DOES take away a right from you, then too bad. If not breaching one right, impedes another, then so be it. I have a right to play my music. My neighbour has a right to quiet after 10pm. His cancels mine. Hers cancels yours. (IF IF IF, its sexually motivated, if not, then youd get let off, wouldnt you.


I'm not suggesting that I should enjoy any greater rights entitlement than others might, but equally, should they enjoy their's to my disadvantage?

If I'm at a public beach and exercising due respect to others, why can I not therefore take photos of what I can see at that public beach?

Because youre breaching her rights, and youre being indecent. IF IF IF youre clearly doing it in a sexual context, and singling her out, and basically, if shes unhappy about it, then too bad for you.

If there are two people subathing adjacent to one another, one topless, the other not. Let's be blatantly sexist in this example - the topless one looks like Amanda Vanstone, while the other looks somewhat more attractive. That wouldn't be hard, of course, but in this instance, and remember, I'm being sexist for this example, the last thing I might want is an image of a topless Amanda Vanstone, yet because of the proximity of the two subjects, I have no choice.

Where is the difference here?

I have no idea what youre talking about here, if you were photographing WHOEVER naked, ina sexual context (taht could be proven.) and you got caught for it, then too bad.

I consider someone flashing themselves, assaulting, or intently taking sexually orientated photos of her without consent, all to be in the same catagory, and i dont believe theyre exempt. (even clothed in bikini, and zooming in on a crotch.)

While I don't find the flashing etc to be offensive, I'm trying to understand why someone might do this?

You dont find someone flashing their genitals at you, as offensive? I have no idea why those people do so.

its been put across that some agree he was out of line, but that its not illegal. "illegal" is on the term used to describe a breach of law. Laws are established aroud what people think is and isnt out of line. I find it a tad weird that one can assert that he was in the wrong, but that when a law can be successfully applied in line with that, one doesnt agree with it. (not talking about the discussion on the "wrong" charge being used, i mean one being used at all.)

I think what he did was stupid. Not illegal.

I agree. I disagree. "illegal" is whatever the law tells you is legal. perhaps you mean "incorrectly illegall"

I don't think you can - nor should you - legislate against stupidity.
I agree. Though it would be nice!


I do think this case should have, and could have, been far better handled by other means.
Agreed, which ive repeatedly said. IMHO the judge should have ruled that his embarrassment to date was sufficient.

...

And what of the tv news reports yesterday (I missed these myself; I'm only going on hearsay) whereby they apparantly showed images of bare breasted ladies at the beach, as a part of their coverage of this story?

If what this fool did at Coogee was wrong - and perhaps (as some might suggest) should have been illegal, surely the news coverage was even moreso?
I'd suggest that they werent singling anyone out, it wasnt a sexual context .. but, assuming those persons consent wasnt requested, and they were upset about it, then it *could* have some weight ... not sure, that may fall back under the "well youre in a public place" argument ... its all in the intent, and context, a very gray area, which is whay judges have discretion. heck i disagree with the judges decisions all the time, but i acklowedge thats as perfect as it can be in gray areas.

[darb]

But wait, there's more.

In an entirely unrelated story, the case of the Tara Girls' School student being raped while on a school excursion to Italy was settled out of court yesterday.

The relevant point (for our discussion here) is that the defence attorney raised as evidence secret photos of the student in question, taken of her in a bar at Broadway in Sydney, wearing a short skirt.

The defence attorney attempted to question the girl's morals and self esteem by making comments about what she was wearing and how she was seated, making reference to these photos that had been secretly taken of her, whilst she was in a bar.

Is the bar a private or a public place?

If those photos can be used as evidence in a high profile legal case - with no question whatsoever as to the legality of how and where those images had been made - then where does that leave the guy at Coogee with the cellphone camera?

I have no idea on pedantics of legal stuff like this. Dont want to either. Was she consenting to the photos being taken? Id surmise if she wasnt, and the photos were of sexual nature, then a court may deem it inadmissable ... but thats really for the anal lawyers to argue about, it has naf all real world relevance.

[dooda]

How do you draw the line between offensive behavior that we deal with all the time, and offensive behavior that is punished by the state?

I personally don't think that "because she took her top off she forfeits her privacy", I think that she forfeited privacy when she went to the beach (a public domain). I think that when she took off her top she became an object of interest, and increased the possibility that one would take direct interest within that public domain, be it with or without sexual intent.

What if (and this is a big "if" but bare with me) the guy had no camera, but was sitting there staring at her doing the same thing in his mind as he did with the camera? And the boyfriend looked over at him and somehow knew exactly what was going on. Feeling the need to do the macho thing, he grabbed him by the throat and called the cops. Then in court some high tech robot confirmed indeed what the alleged had done in his mind. If truly it is all about intent that we are talking about here, then he should have had been dragged away getting a $500.00 fine. A stretch? Maybe but I'm going with it.

Granted that this can't happen but I believe that the principle applies when talking about something as subjective as intent. The fact is, he hadn't done anything malicious with the photo, it (the photo) had served absolutley no purpose (and to say that he was going to would have to be proven) and sat in his camera as harmlessly as an image resides in your head. So intent can't be the only issue here. So then the crime is intent with a camera, because minus the camera there is no crime (I believe). So now I look at that camera and ask, "what is it about the camera that makes something stupid and silly a crime? What does it facilitate that makes the activity criminal? How was the image on the camera used to transform silly stupidity into criminal activity?"

I truly believe that this woman would or should deal with the reaction of humans when disrobing in public. It's too bad that people act inappropriatley, but it's life and to find a law that sticks $500 on each little offensive act interpreted offensive by a judge is a dangerous precedent.

On a note aside from my arguement, if this happened in Canada, the police would be pulling her away for exposing herself in public, and when she complained about someone taking pictures, they would probably say, "What do you expect them to do? You're naked!"

[darb]

I've already put my opinion forward as much as I can be bothered discussing.

We have courts of law, the court and judges that we appoint, are responsible for wading through what is and isn't an offence in these gray areas

It aint perfect, it never will be ... a judge really gets up your nose, then write to your politicians to envoke change / debate.

waht someone does inside their mind is their own business, you cant charge someone for "looking seedy", so thats a non issue.

As i said, this discussion is futile, its a matter of opinion, on which we do not agree. There are far too many hypotheticals, and what if's, and thats exactly why cases are judged on their individual merits by the judges we appoint. There are some cases where I may agree with your opinion, others where I may not.

[dooda]

I understand if you're tired of this thread. I find it fascinating and a fun debate.

Besides, I'm from Canada and this doesn't apply so much to me as it does all of you.

[gstark]

Assuming it DOES take away a right from you, then too bad

So, her rights are more important than mine?

Or yours?

By what criteria?

I'm happy the my rights are equal to her's, your's and everyone else's. Isn't that something to with all people being created equal? I have an issue with someone else being more equal than I might be.

I have no idea what youre talking about here

In this instance, I was raising the issue whereby someone is taking a photo of someone who is not topless, nude, or whatever, but, because of the relationship between the location of that person and the location of some other person who might be topless, that other person is accidentally included in the photo.

What's the situation here?

With relation to each of the two parties in question?

You dont find someone flashing their genitals at you, as offensive?

Should I? What is offensive about genitalia? We all have them.

I might perhaps view some behavioural patterns as an illness, but that still doesn't make something offensive to me.

"illegal" is whatever the law tells you is legal. perhaps you mean "incorrectly illegall"

No; I'm happy with what I said. I don't consider what he did as illegal. Just stupid. How often do we find the law to be an ass? This seems to me to be one such case.

[darb]

ahh i give up. I've said my bit, take it or leave it.

[gstark]

I personally don't think that "because she took her top off she forfeits her privacy", I think that she forfeited privacy when she went to the beach (a public domain). I think that when she took off her top she became an object of interest, and increased the possibility that one would take direct interest within that public domain, be it with or without sexual intent.

Excellent points, and excellent distinction.

What if (and this is a big "if" but bare with me) the guy had no camera, but was sitting there staring at her doing the same thing in his mind as he did with the camera?

Again, excellent point, pun notwithstanding.

I truly believe that this woman would or should deal with the reaction of humans when disrobing in public. It's too bad that people act inappropriatley, but it's life and to find a law that sticks $500 on each little offensive act interpreted offensive by a judge is a dangerous precedent.

Sadly, yes, I have to agree.

I think it's sad that the woman needs to consider how her actions of disrobing in public might impact other people, and I think it's sad that a judge has set a precedent that I believe is both flawed and dangerous.

On a note aside from my arguement, if this happened in Canada, the police would be pulling her away for exposing herself in public, and when she complained about someone taking pictures, they would probably say, "What do you expect them to do? You're naked!"

Thankfully, and with all due respect, we are mostly well past that sort of attitude here.

I note that the offender is young (25), male, and his occupation was stated to be a labourer. Without wanting to be too judgemental in this case, one might be inclined to describe a young male labourer as less likely to be well educated, perhaps of lesser intelligence, but unlikely to be too sophisticated an individual.

As we've already agreed, what he did was stupid, and perhaps my judgemental word picture of the individual sums this up?

[gstark]

I understand if you're tired of this thread. I find it fascinating and a fun debate.

Besides, I'm from Canada and this doesn't apply so much to me as it does all of you.

I agree entirely; nobody is forcing anyone to engage in this discussion.

I'm enjoying it too, and I think it's an interesting topic to explore, not to mention discussion of the impact of the judge's decision upon our perceived freedoms.

[gstark]

Was she consenting to the photos being taken?

Not to my knowledge. The photos were taken secretly, with neither her knowledge nor consent.

Id surmise if she wasnt, and the photos were of sexual nature, then a court may deem it inadmissable ... but thats really for the anal lawyers to argue about, it has naf all real world relevance.

Were they of a sexual nature?

That was pretty much the thrust of the defence attorney's argument, in fact. That this girl who was claiming to have been raped three years earlier was wearing a short skirt and sitting provocatively in a bar. He was effectively trying to say "no, she wasn't raped three years ago, she was asking for it"

What is sexual is in the eyes - or more correctly mind - of the beholder.

That's parhaps a part of why I don't see the exposure of genitalia d being offensive.

[darb]

Our views are very different, and so are our opinions, gary. Im going to leave it at that, its a waste of my time, and yours.

[ajo43]

Now dpreview is on the case. The American perspective might be interesting.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=11277636

[MHD]

its a touchy subject that deals with freedoms..

I have been bitten by similar things to this (albeit not as serious)
I was forceably removed from a bar for taking pictures of mates and some one disaproved...

Zero I can do (private property..)

I agree with Gary that people in public should realise they are in public
but I also agree that there are certain things you can do to offend people in public places...

It is an interesting case.. which is why its in the media..

[phillipb]

I just have one question on this, If the guy did exactly the same thing with the same intentions, but the lady was not topless, would he be in the same trouble? If so then fair enough but if not then it's wrong to distingush between the two.. He didn't take her top off, she did.

[Greg B]

Interesting point Phillip. It would probably turn on whether the individual was causing a nuisance etc etc.

For such an apparently simple matter, the issues are remarkably complex.

The exercise of common sense (which is exercised far too infrequently) would probably have avoided this incident and could help to avoid many similar problems.

[darb]

http://forum.ski.com.au/scripts/ultimat ... p=5#000108

a debate here going on about it ... lots of women involved too. Same thing, clashes of opinion as to whether its offensive or not, when sexual intent present. I havent contributed there ... and im done with it , its a moral mindfield !!

that was page 5... you may wanan click page 1.

Anyways, have fun guys!