Expectations of privacy (with respect to candids)

[MerryConqueror]

First off, let me say that I don't condone the following behaviour (i.e., the web site) and in no way am associated with it, the university, or anyone/anything else associated with the story. I'm just curious about the POTN community's thoughts on this...

Quick summary: Complaints have come up at the University of Victoria about a web site that seems to contain pictures of women (students), from behind, that have ... well, evidence of the type of undies they're wearing (namely thongs) on display above their belt-line. The photos have been taken in public places, probably with cell-phone cameras, but I don't think it matters what sort of camera was used. Here's a link to a news article: The Victoria Times Colonist (http://www.canada.com/victoria/timescolonist/news/capital_van_isl/story.html?id=1558c35d-3da3-4e5b-a533-69b05ad29739)

So, my comments are these: For non-commercial (although in these circumstances, at the very least very odd and somewhat creepy) photography purposes, what expectation of privacy should people have when in public places? If I'm at a sporting event and take a crowd shot, that seems like a perfectly valid thing to do. If I take a shot from a crowd and focus in on one interesting person, that also seems valid. Where is the line (is there one) where public candids infringe on personal privacy expectations? Where does it cross from "candids" to "voyeurism"?

In this case, there seems to be outrage (well, perhaps overblown by the media) over these photos. I think the *collection* of the photos is more disturbing than the photos of themselves, but I really don't see a huge problem.

Thoughts?

MC>

[BearSummer]

Hi MerryConqueror,

well it looks like the website has been pulled so its kinda difficult to see what all the fuss was about.

If you are in a public place then you have to expect some intrusion into your privacy. This may mean that you have people taking pictures of you, so it is up to you to display yourself in a way that you would want to be viewed. Yes its creepy, but you are responsible for your own safety and appearance in public. So long as the campus doesn't state that you cant take pictures of the students whilst on the campus grounds then I dont think the photogrpher has broken any laws, tho his/her sense of taste may be somewhat different to the norm.

Best regards

BearSummer

[LisaMarie]

Hi Merry-
I tend to agree with the comment on the website “all photos on this Web site were taken either with the subject's consent, or in a public venue. We only want to show the world what you already have."
It’s not like these people were peeking through fences in areas meant to be private or other wise obtaining the images where it’s apparent the people wanted privacy. They were in public. That’s just my opinion.

Laws are different everywhere and I am also aware that there is a law in Canada regarding Voyeurism trying to be enacted -

From http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/voy/part1-context.html (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/voy/part1-context.html)

“On February 12, 2002, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice passed a resolution urging the Minister of Justice to amend the Criminal Code to criminalize voyeurism and the distribution of visual representations obtained through voyeurism.

Defining Voyeurism

There are two ways to define voyeurism: as a behaviour and as a sexual disorder. In general terms, a voyeur is "a person who derives sexual gratification from the covert observation of others as they undress or engage in sexual activities" (Canadian Oxford Dictionary). In this context, the behaviour is concerned with three things: the surreptitious nature of the observations; the private and intimate nature of what is observed; and sexual gratification. Voyeuristic behaviour may extend not only to the making of the voyeuristic images, but may include distribution of voyeuristic visual representations to others…”

So technically- they have broken the law ? Tough again- the people were dressed like this out in public places. The law seems kind of silly b/c peoples “gratifications” can be nearly anything.. Left open to interpretation but I am sure this law would be enacted with good intentions they just need to tweak it a bit and get real. Because if the photographer is a voyer breaking the law in this case- so is evey person dressed in a sexually expressive way in public.

[BearSummer]

I think the photographer would still be inside the letter of the law as they dont fall within the remit of " the covert observation of others as they undress or engage in sexual activities". Tho their taste may be a bit suspect.

best regards

BearSummer

[steven]

I think since these people were in public places that taking a photo of them if fine.
Not that I condone a web site that features that subject. I would call it just tastless, but there are many many sites that fall into that catagory.
But that being said it you could view this as a comercial use of the pictures. As they put the pictures on a web site expressly to get many people to view it. So in a way they profited from the display these pictures.

[RockSlut]

I've done quite a bit of research on a similar issue as regards to Australian law. It is an issue that really annoys me. There are two distinct issues at hand here IMO.

1. The Law.
2. Photograper's Ethics

As far as I have found, in Australia, if you're in a public place you have no right to expect privacy. In the example below, there was a woman who was topless sun bathing on a popular Sydney beach, an idiot with a mobile phone camera took a photo of her and was spotted by the girl's partner.

She had no right or reasonable expectation of privacy. However, if she were sunbathing in her own back yard and said photographer climbed a tree and took the photo over her fence, that would be another matter (peeping tom laws would apply). The photograper in question was charged with "offensive behaviour in a public place". Which, as far as I am aware, would normally apply to someone who was mooning people (or other similar behaviour). IMO the police stretched the law to cover the situation because the community in this case demanded that action be taken. Because, if there was a "you cannot take photos of people in public" law was available they would have used that instead. I also think that if the if he chose not to plead guilty and sought legal advice, he probably could have beaten the charge.

It is not like he was standing underneath the stairs taking the photos (in which case the subject would have a reasonable expectation and therefore right of privacy).


While I absolutely do not condone this activity, I fail to see how it is reasonable to consider the act of taking the photo as illegal. To do so will affect "candid photography" and sets a rather dangerous precedent on photography more generally. Because then you get into the eternal argument about what exactly constitues art. Also, once the community feels it has a right to privacy in public we've all got problems, especially if you enjoy reading the morning paper, or want to know that if the police are beating up on people in the street that the behaviour can be documented by a member of the public and used as evidence. What about the guy whose job is taking photos to make postcards? Like I said, a dangerous precedent.

The article: http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Unhappy-adventures-end-as-beach-pest-loses-camera/2004/12/01/1101577557039.html?from=storylhs&oneclick=true

Issue number 2 is separate, and more important, IMO. As a photographer I believe that I have an ethical responsibility in relation to the photos that I take, or publish. I do event photography, in that when I go out I will often take photos of people in the crowd. I let the subject know what I *might* use the photo for publication on my website, which is editorial in nature. Further to this, I go a step further. I look objectively at the photos and where I consider an image is not flattering or not how the subject would be happy to be portrayed, I will not publish. This protects myself as a photographer (why would I want people seeing my bad photos?) and also the subject, who is not going to let me take their photo again if they know that I have published an unflattering one previously. Also, I do not appreciate when people publish bad photos of me, so I afford the same consideration that I expect to others.

I know another person who does similar photos, however that person delights on publishing the potos of people looking their worst, and then further takes pleasure in making derogatory comments about the subjects by way of caption. Perfectly legal (in so far as the captions are not libelous in nature)? Yes. Ethical? In my opinion, not at all.

To tie it back to the issue under current discussion, both the sydney beach camera phoen idiot, as well as the camera phone idiots referred to in your story (I could not find the site). The photographers in question, have serious ethical issues and ones that it would be incredibly difficult to legislate against appropriately without undermining our respect art.

[MerryConqueror]

Wow, Angus, I think you've nailed it. In public, any reasonable person should expect to be seen. And "being seen" includes having photos taken, and even videos. In fact, the issue of video surveillance of public streets by local authorities is one that often arises here in Western Canada. Several towns and cities have at least considered the idea of posting video cameras in high crime areas and monitoring them for suspicious activity. I understand this is very common in the UK. At any rate, when these proposals are made here, again some very vocal people complain about the cameras being an invasion of privacy.

But for me, it boils down to: in public, you will be seen. Pictures may be taken. Video may be captured. Get over it! If you don't want how you look recorded while you're in a public place, don't look that way in public!

The ethical issue is perhaps what rubs people wrong (in this particular instance at least). And, of course everyone has a different level of what they think is right or wrong, and clearly this instance falls below the threshold of quite a number.

Anyway, thanks for your insight!

MC>

[MerryConqueror]

Thanks for the feedback. The local police certainly have acknowleged that no laws have been broken, but it's the uproar that I find irritating. I think that most of the uproar stems from the tastelessness of the website, but people seem to be responding to it by compaining about privacy issues. After thinking about it and reading all the replies here, I just can't see how this is a privacy issue. Or at least, I can't see why this should be a privacy issue.

[VegasGeorge]

People dress and groom the way they want to be seen by others. Visible panties are no different than bare midriffs, low cut tops, and slit skirts. It's no different with men and their tank tops and revealingly tight pants. Immodest behavior attracts attention, and that's just what these people are seeking. Then, when they see the opportunity to get even more attention by complaining about invasion of their "privacy," of course they do. This isn't about them not wanting their pictures taken. It's about them wanting to draw even more attention to themselves.

[FlyingPete]

Another possible variable here, what is considered 'decent' and what is not?

100 years ago, a shot of a woman with bare legs possibly would have been border line, no, no issue (just try a post on the internet 100 years ago!). Society’s standards change over time, which would make it hard to define a law, what one person deems normal and OK, someone else would deem over the top.

Perhaps the very action of 'documenting' people like this leads to the degradation of society’s standards?

[RockSlut]

Perhaps the very action of 'documenting' people like this leads to the degradation of society’s standards?

...or perhaps it merely reflects the degradation of society's standards. Art imitates life...or vice versa?

The internet just makes it easier for people to contact likeminded persons . Mostly it is for good (Thanks Pekka!)...however, sometimes it is for bad.

I wish I had answers for it, I just know that legislating against the activities described is certainly not going to make the world a better place, because I think it would be very difficult to effectively do so without having serious unintended consequences.

[IndyJeff]

I don't see the problem. Girls walking around with their thongs on display for the world to see and they are upset because someone took a picture of them and posted it on the internet? Well here's a tip girls, don't advertise the package and you won't end up on the erotica pages of the web with the hookers!!

If I am the photographer and nothing is visable except their backside and thong hanging out, I am leaving it on the site, too bad toots.

[pradeep1]

I don't see the problem. Girls walking around with their thongs on display for the world to see and they are upset because someone took a picture of them and posted it on the internet? Well here's a tip girls, don't advertise the package and you won't end up on the erotica pages of the web with the hookers!!

If I am the photographer and nothing is visable except their backside and thong hanging out, I am leaving it on the site, too bad toots.

I agree with you...if you are going to wear a thong to get attention, there is a possibility of getting more attention than you imagined. Trying to legislate this, like RockSlut says, would have far greater consequences for legitimate or not-so-legitimate activities. Good item to follow in the news...

[jimsolt]

Just ran accross this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4786634,00.html) article on this subject.

[steven]

Just ran accross this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4786634,00.html) article on this subject.
This is just too weird. While you are in public I don't think you have a right to privacy BUT I do think you do have the right to NOT have anyone look up your skirt or other locations that are not easily visable.

I can see the problem in creating a law that makes shooting up a skirt wrong but not taking a picture of the same person just walking down the street.

[jimsolt]

This is just too weird. While you are in public I don't think you have a right to privacy BUT I do think you do have the right to NOT have anyone look up your skirt or other locations that are not easily visable.

I can see the problem in creating a law that makes shooting up a skirt wrong but not taking a picture of the same person just walking down the street.

Aha! If only everyone would make this observation. It is very difficult to control morality and ethics by making laws.

Jim