Fine line on what's acceptable?

[hawk911]

This man was arrested for taking tight shots of body parts at the state fair. His intentions were certainly tainted, but where would police draw the line?

Wisconsin man arrested for taking tight body shots in public (http://www.wisn.com/news/13988427/detail.html?rss=mil&psp=news)

[New Hobby]

I'm not a huge fan of putting limits on photograph but this guy sounds like he has a problem.

[thekid24]

Im pretty safe to say that Im not the only one that has taken 'backside' shots of women. Not girls but women...I read it as this guy took shots of girls. Thats a lil off in the head....motors running but noone behind the wheel...no what i mean.

And Ive also never followed someone...usually she walks past me...i aim..BAM..and thats it..this guy was following people...definately creepy.

[nicksan]

If he's been convicted of the same type of behaviour then I guess he was breaking the law and hence deserved to be arrested...

Must be pretty creepy to see someone like that "working"...

[digitalfrog]

It's because of <fill in your favourite curse word> like this that the population gets more and more suspicious towards all photog's.

;-(

Ralph

[gjl711]

Hmm.. I'm wondering what law he broke? There are lots of creepy people out there and being creepy is not yet against the law. The article is very unclear as to what he specifically did to get himself arrested. Heck, I can see the day where someone just doesn’t like the look of your big while lens at say an air show so they get the local cop an have you arrested because your white lens could possible take their picture. Now maybe he was stalking which though creepy, is not yet illegal unless there is a court order stating that you can not stalk a certain person. Or maybe he had his hands in a certain place while taking pic, but then wouldn’t the behavior of his camera free hand be the reason of the arrest?

[PhotosGuy]

I'm wondering what law he broke? The old "Disorderly conduct", probably covers a LOT of ground that they can't fit into other categories? A good lawyer will probably get him off.

[hawk911]

best I can see from the public access records on Wisconsin Court Access is disorderly conduct. The details are not available online, but would be at the court house.

It bothers me that someone could raise a stink if I shot a picture of a scene, and they happen to be irritated they were included in the scene and they could have me arrested. Now-- this man obviously took it too far, but how do I as a photog know someone else won't initiate a complaint?

[Curtis N]

The old "Disorderly conduct", probably covers a LOT of ground that they can't fit into other categories?I think that's the whole reason such laws exist. It gives the cops a lot of lattitude.A good lawyer will probably get him off.Since he's been convicted of this before, I have my doubts.

I really don't think this is a photographer's right kind of case. He could use an empty camera and still get arrested if he creeps people out. The film in his cameras will be used against him though.

[PhotosGuy]

I really don't think this is a photographer's right kind of case. Me either. Since he's been convicted of this before, I have my doubts. Old, old joke: What do you call a lawyer/doctor/etc who graduated at the bottom of the class?

[chauncey]

Taking a shot of a womens backside, not me. Maybe I'm a prude.

[neumanns]

Allright then....Hmmm, I'm going to the state fair later this week and I'm taking my camera (I don't exactly consider it a disposable) Odds are likley that there will be people in my shot's that are strangers that I will not notify before or after I take the shot.

So my question is this...Do I also cross this line if I zoom in(too tight on a body part) on one of these strangers while post proccesing, Regardless of my intentions?

Now I understand the premise to the creepy argument here, And his history (but the alert fairgoers were not aware of this at the time)...But arn't they part and parcel of the same argument?

.
.
.
.
I have proabably already crossed this line....At a parade this summer I innocently shot a float, unnoticed to me until post proccesing in the background was mother breast feeding. Perhaps someone can clarify for me when I crossed it!!! Was it when I zoomed to 50% ...75%...98%, Of course as you can all understand as a red blooded american male I did not zoom to 100%! Why....well to avoid the disorderly conduct (or is it lewd intention's)charge of course!


Now don't get me wrong I'm not trying to defend this guy as it truly does sound "creepy" but just trying to point out "IT IS A FINE LINE"...I don't feel I crossed it but others may feel I have!

[scraps]

So if he took full body shots and then cropped them into tight body shots of backsides would that be illegal cropping? Not trying to defend the guy, just raising a point...

<edit> looks like neumanns and I made a similar point

[steven]

I would guess that it was how he was going about taking his pictures.
Just imagine how close he would have to get to get "body parts" using a disposable camera.
So I would bet that it is this behavior (getting close enough for close ups with disposable camera) that got him in trouble and not just taking pictures.

[scraps]

I'll bet that 100-400 of yours makes it much easier! (jk)

[rdsmith3]

I would guess that it was how he was going about taking his pictures.
Just imagine how close he would have to get to get "body parts" using a disposable camera.
So I would bet that it is this behavior (getting close enough for close ups with disposable camera) that got him in trouble and not just taking pictures.

Yes, exactly what I was thinking. He was using a disposable and taking pictures of body parts, not entire bodies. Therefore, he must have been fairly close. The subjects included children, presumably. It is inappropriate behavior to get close to people you don't know, especially children, to take pictures of specific body parts.

As a father, I don't see this as a fine line at all. Based on this article, he seems like a pervert, but there's always more to the story than you read in the press.

[gjl711]

Ya know, body parts like an elbow or a leg isn't going to get you in trouble. I sense that there was a little upskirting going on and that was the body part of interest.

[neumanns]

I sense that there was a little upskirting going on and that was the body part of interest.

This is gonna sound nieve but I had in mind cheerleader type dance outfits flaring up.... I suspect your right!

If sombody gives me a butt shot I may take it but I certianly aint gonna stick my camera under there dress to get it......( the wife *may* be exclude from the above statment)

[howzitboy]

"In 2005, Sheboygan police arrested him at the Blue Harbor resort after a father caught Ehrenreich taking pictures of the man's family." from that page errrr, when is it illegal to take picture of someones family? if they are in a public place wheres the crime?

[rdsmith3]

"In 2005, Sheboygan police arrested him at the Blue Harbor resort after a father caught Ehrenreich taking pictures of the man's family." from that page errrr, when is it illegal to take picture of someones family? if they are in a public place wheres the crime?

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know the facts of that particular incident. However, it was fairly easy to find out that Wisconsin has a stalking law, which potentially could apply:

Stalking
§ 940.32 Stalking. Amended 2005.

(1) In this section:
(a) "Course of conduct" means a series of 2 or more acts carried out over time, however short or long, that show a continuity of purpose, including any of the following:
1. Maintaining a visual or physical proximity to the victim.
2. Approaching or confronting the victim.
3. Appearing at the victims workplace or contacting the victims employer or coworkers.
4. Appearing at the victims home or contacting the victims neighbors
5. Entering property owned, leased, or occupied by the victim.
6. Contacting the victim by telephone or causing the victims telephone or any other persons telephone to ring repeatedly or continuously, regardless of whether a conversation ensues.
6m. Photographing, videotaping, audiotaping, or, through any other electronic means, monitoring or recording the activities of the victim. This subdivision applies regardless of where the act occurs.
7. Sending material by any means to the victim or, for the purpose of obtaining information about, disseminating information about, or communicating with the victim, to a member of the victims family or household or an employer, coworker, or friend of the victim.
8. Placing an object on or delivering an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by the victim.
9. Delivering an object to a member of the victims family or household or an employer, coworker, or friend of the victim or placing an object on, or delivering an object to, property owned, leased, or occupied by such a person with the intent that the object be delivered to the victim.
10. Causing a person to engage in any of the acts described in subds. 1. to 9.


It looks like committing these actions two times could cause it to be considered stalking. Violating this law is a class 1 felony.

[gjl711]

..It looks like committing these actions two times could cause it to be considered stalking. Violating this law is a class 1 felony.
6m. Photographing, videotaping, audiotaping, or, through any other electronic means, monitoring or recording the activities of the victim. This subdivision applies regardless of where the act occurs.
Wait, this way to general. Using this definition, I can call the cops on my bank or convenience store. They videotape me every time I come in. I’m being stalked and didn’t even know it.

[themichael]

Does this apply if the camera is in burst mode?

How about taking photos at a yearly local event and the same people appear in the shots?

Of course, this could get sillier....

[jbone]

. Old, old joke: What do you call a lawyer/doctor/etc who graduated at the bottom of the class?

A lawyer/doctor. (?)

[PhotosGuy]

A lawyer/doctor. (?) You've got it!

[Mark_Cohran]

Although I don't condone this type of action at all, I have a feeling that unless this guy cops a plea, I seriously doubt he can be convicted on any charges that are related to taking photos in public.

Mark

[Click-it]

He will get off with s slap on the wrist I bet.

[300Dplus]

Im pretty safe to say that Im not the only one that has taken 'backside' shots of women.
..or dogs, or women and dogs;)
This was at a dog fair and the "double take" shot was there to my left as I was walking...couldn't resist:D

[20droger]

..or dogs, or women and dogs;)
This was at a dog fair and the "double take" shot was there to my left as I was walking...couldn't resist:D
This shot is mildly humorous and relatively innocent.

Now, if all you were interested in was the woman's behind, and cropped to it in post processing, I would wonder about you sexual/mental health. (If it was the dog's behind, I would wonder even more.) But the taking of the original picture would remain relatively innocent.

If, however, you were using a disposable camera and got close enough to capture only the woman's (or dog's) behind, I think you would really have crossed over the line.

[Skippy29]

I'm confused, it was out in public right? What's the difference between looking at a womens boobs hanging out of her shirt, and taking a picture of the women's boobs hanging out of her shirt?
I'm thinking hypothetically, but in relation to the topic here.

[Goshawk]

Very vague information. To be arrested I can only think this guy must have been out of line, maybe sticking the camera under the victims skirt while walking right behind them comes to mind. To take "tight" bodyshots with a disposable camera that camera have to be really close to the subject. I do not think he could have been arrested for just normal from behind photo's. The guy is obviously a weirdo. At least they did not label him as a "photographer" .

[20droger]

I stongly suspect it was his actions, more than the photography per se, that got him into trouble, just as people have gotten into trouble for inappropriate use of patent-leather shoes, or shoes with mirrors.

In any case, I do not want him as a "friend," neither would I contribute to his defense fund.

[Goshawk]

I'm confused, it was out in public right? What's the difference between looking at a womens boobs hanging out of her shirt, and taking a picture of the women's boobs hanging out of her shirt?
I'm thinking hypothetically, but in relation to the topic here.
If the woman is wearing a skimpy/revealing top with her breasts being on public display there is nothing stopping you from taking a photo. But if you make an obvious effort to photograph "more" of her breasts that is on display you are going to start getting into trouble. Women bending forward and their breasts becoming visible/wind blowing their skirts up/sitting in such a position so that you can see up their skirt will most likely come down to your own morals. Cannot see that they can charge you for anything if you did not sneak around pointing the camera up under their skirts.

[Goshawk]

Allright then....Hmmm, I'm going to the state fair later this week and I'm taking my camera (I don't exactly consider it a disposable) Odds are likley that there will be people in my shot's that are strangers that I will not notify before or after I take the shot.

So my question is this...Do I also cross this line if I zoom in(too tight on a body part) on one of these strangers while post proccesing, Regardless of my intentions?

Now I understand the premise to the creepy argument here, And his history (but the alert fairgoers were not aware of this at the time)...But arn't they part and parcel of the same argument?

.
.
.
.
I have proabably already crossed this line....At a parade this summer I innocently shot a float, unnoticed to me until post proccesing in the background was mother breast feeding. Perhaps someone can clarify for me when I crossed it!!! Was it when I zoomed to 50% ...75%...98%, Of course as you can all understand as a red blooded american male I did not zoom to 100%! Why....well to avoid the disorderly conduct (or is it lewd intention's)charge of course!


Now don't get me wrong I'm not trying to defend this guy as it truly does sound "creepy" but just trying to point out "IT IS A FINE LINE"...I don't feel I crossed it but others may feel I have!If she were doing it openly in public she was obviously not bothered by it so why should you be. If she went behind a building/car to get out of public view(even though still in a "public" place) and you took a photo yes that will morally be very wrong but still not illegal. In the right context a woman breastfeeding can make a beautiful and powerful image. If anybody finds such a image "perverted" maybe there is something very wrong with themselves.
Even though I might be in the right legally I am careful of taking photo's of strangers, some people really do not like it. An event is something else but to just point your camera towards total strangers and to snap away is a quick way to make yourself unpopular. It will cost you nothing to be polite and to ask first.

[20droger]

Ah! A "skin fest"! Or is that a "flesh air"?