TEXAS LAW AGAINST IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

electricme wrote in post #17200269
Ohh. Ok so they deserved to be stalked... I get it just like girls dressing to skantily deserve it when they get raped.

I didn't say anything about stalking. I'm saying if you walk around in public with part of your butt hanging out, you'll look slovenly, and a photographer might have a good reason to take your picture even if he isn't a voyeur.

electricme wrote in post #17200269
Ohh. Ok so they deserved to be stalked... I get it just like girls dressing to skantily deserve it when they get raped.

Stalking is a crime. We are not talking about stalking here, but the limits placed on photography in public. If you take it to the point of harrasment or stalking its a different crime.

Luckless wrote in post #17199643
Are we going to sit here and try and decide what is and isn't 'art' for everyone for all time? Could someone not take such a photo to use as social commentary?


The product of art does not exist in a vacuum. While some will say that art should be able to stand on its own with nothing from the outside, that is background stories or additional information beyond the work in and of itself, others will argue that the background information is equally important. Who the artist is, what they were thinking, what their life story and influence is.


You don't have to like art, but lacking actual harm to other people you can't really say "No, it isn't art and you can't do that" without violating someone's freedom of expression. And the more we suppress "the fringe" and their freedom of expression then the more we move what we consider to be the fringe, and that is not a good thing.

There is a deep abyss separating the buttocks picture and art.
Would you call that art? Really?

And yes, somebody could take a picture as a social comment. But for it to be that, context is needed. Because on or near a beach a bikini like the one in the picture is perfectly normal and appropriate. But here all context has been removed and all we see are buttocks. How can that be a social commentary?

OhLook wrote in post #17200446
I didn't say anything about stalking. I'm saying if you walk around in public with part of your butt hanging out, you'll look slovenly, and a photographer might have a good reason to take your picture even if he isn't a voyeur.

That's a mighty strange view from you, OhLook, and one I had not expected from you, to be honest. It does seem to suggest that you mean that a woman, dressed like that, deserves everything that happens to her!

In any case, the woman could easily have just left the beach. The flip flops in her hand suggest something like that. Maybe she is crossing the street to get some refreshments. Maybe she is leaving the beach and simply walking across the street to her car. We don't know because the context has been removed! But aside from the missing context, a woman's attire never means: feel free to photograph my buttocks, my breasts, or touch me or... well, you fill in the rest... I am by the way not convinced the woman is an adult, she has the physique of a young girl.

Here's another picture with a clear context: https://photography-on-the.net …p=17054814&post​count=9252

Here we have two women on a beach and dressed for it. Nothing inappropriate about it. Yet the photographer is clearly not interested in the women, but only in their butts.

I'm sorry to say that to me pictures like these fall into the category of dirty pictures and the photographer who takes them is the equivalent of a teenage boy, peeping through a pair of binoculars into the bedroom of the woman across the street. In my opinion pictures like that are unworthy of a serious photographer.

OhLook wrote in post #17199478
The skin texture on the bigger person suggests to me that she's an adult. I'd call the outfits tasteless because the bottoms are too small or too loose or don't have enough elastic to keep the cloth from flying up and out and exposing their rear ends.

The skin texture and hair and outfit suggests to ME that she is about 16-18 years old. The MOTHER seems to be in the background on the right. Mother...daughter...an​d maybe niece or granddaughter.

Tasteless? Really? 16 years old and she CHOSE that...so she deserves to have her ass photoed and put on the internet so that perverts can look and fantasize? Really? Well...her tasteless outfit (while she's walking with her mom to the beach) must warrant such...since you say so.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17200557
And yes, somebody could take a picture as a social comment. But for it to be that, context is needed. Because on or near a beach a bikini like the one in the picture is perfectly normal and appropriate. But here all context has been removed and all we see are buttocks. How can that be a social commentary?

One clue that affected my opinion, not consciously articulated on first viewing, is that other people nearby are more covered up than these two. This could be a crowd of shoppers.

I don't know the photographer's intention. The photo struck me as a social commentary because a big part of my reaction was dismay that a child would dress like that in public. I thought she needed more supervision or different supervision. Because the two females were together and their outfits were so similar, I had the idea that the older one was a role model for the little girl and may have selected her clothes.

My view seems perfectly natural to me. I assure you that I don't believe it's all right for strangers to touch her or follow her. I just don't think butt-baring bikinis are decent attire in real life. (I find them exhibitionistic rather than attractive.) I accept them in Glamour & Nude images, but that's not the same. On showgirls, fine, standards are different in the entertainment industry. But for regular people where, for instance, children are likely to see them? I know, I know, women sunbathe topless in the south of France and all that--but I don't live there.

The right I'm arguing for is the right of photographers to make images of people in public. Turn it around: I don't believe that wearing too little gives a woman (or a man) immunity from being photographed.

Sure, that's possible. How a child should dress remains an issue nonetheless.

I agree with you about that one. "Dirty pictures" might be too strong, but that shot seems to be only about bodies. I don't see in it any message like I see in the first example.

sophies-mom wrote in post #17200568
=sophie's-mom;17200568]The skin texture and hair and outfit suggests to ME that she is about 16-18 years old. The MOTHER seems to be in the background on the right. Mother...daughter...an​d maybe niece or granddaughter.

Tasteless? Really? 16 years old and she CHOSE that...so she deserves to have her ass photoed and put on the internet so that perverts can look and fantasize? Really? Well...her tasteless outfit (while she's walking with her mom to the beach) must warrant such...since you say so.

You think she's a teen and I don't. We can only speculate about the family relationships, if any. It could be big sister and little sister or something else. Okay. That's no reason to get crabby about it. Yes, I think those bikini bottoms are tasteless. They don't hide the crease.

If she chose that, she should know that the local perverts can look and fantasize while she's there. That would be a good enough reason to wear something else.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17200557
There is a deep abyss separating the buttocks picture and art.
Would you call that art? Really?

So if their attire is considered appropriate, then what is the issue with the photo?

Sure, it's not art, it could be a memory or perv even, but would you have as much of a problem if the women were fully clothed/more conservative swimwear?

There are folks that wear much more conservative swimwear, and thus not being targeted. Wanting people not to photograph scantily clad women is quite the request, since men naturally like to look, and looking isn't a crime.

If a gal puts on minimal clothing in public who is to say that I can't look/photograph?

If I wear a chicken costume in public, who am I to say you shouldn't look/photograph me?

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17200557
I'm sorry to say that to me pictures like these fall into the category of dirty pictures and the photographer who takes them is the equivalent of a teenage boy, peeping through a pair of binoculars into the bedroom of the woman across the street. In my opinion pictures like that are unworthy of a serious photographer.

+1

sophies-mom wrote in post #17200568
=sophie's-mom;17200568]The skin texture and hair and outfit suggests to ME that she is about 16-18 years old. The MOTHER seems to be in the background on the right. Mother...daughter...an​d maybe niece or granddaughter.

16-17 would still be considered under age though. the one girl is in no doubt under 18, the other one is likely under 18 there is no way the one on the right is the mother of the one on the left

Oh I saw a south of france sunbathing comment, apparently women are wearing tops now, with everyone with a camera and snapping shots, the girls have gotten shy

Charlie wrote in post #17200848
So if their attire is considered appropriate, then what is the issue with the photo?

Sure, it's not art, it could be a memory or perv even, but would you have as much of a problem if the women were fully clothed/more conservative swimwear?

If a gal puts on minimal clothing in public who is to say that I can't look/photograph?

If I wear a chicken costume in public, who am I to say you shouldn't look/photograph me?

You must've missed a whole cultural movement with a loud voice telling society that dress is about the way you feel about yourself, not the reaction you elicit from your surroundings or responsibility you bear for attention brought on by choices you make.

At this point it's an issue of policy. And approaching a policy decision intellectually is like beating up a toddler: it's easy to accomplish, but doesn't look good.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17200557
There is a deep abyss separating the buttocks picture and art.
Would you call that art? Really?

And yes, somebody could take a picture as a social comment. But for it to be that, context is needed. Because on or near a beach a bikini like the one in the picture is perfectly normal and appropriate. But here all context has been removed and all we see are buttocks. How can that be a social commentary?

Why can't it be art? Why can't it be social commentary?

Even porn can be art and social commentary... and often it is. How can you say it's not social commentary without knowing what's being commented on? Maybe there's a 20 picture exhibit somewhere about a topic which isn't immediately obvious and a shot like this ties it together.

That's a shallow critique. We're taking PICTURES. So anything and anybody we photograph get attention on appearance only. Personality doesn't come through when you look at a picture. This approach doesn't target women specifically. It's a democratic thing, where anything visually interesting gets camera attention which spans across gender, age, race...etc

OhLook wrote in post #17200446
I'm saying if you walk around in public with part of your butt hanging out, you'll look slovenly, and a photographer might have a good reason to take your picture even if he isn't a voyeur.

butt photographers just want to add to their portfolios

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #17200941
This approach doesn't target women specifically. It's a democratic thing, where anything visually interesting gets camera attention which spans across gender, age, race...etc

Can you point me to the thread of male bum shots?

I photograph a lot of roller derby, and one of the things players (mainly women in their mid 20s to 30s) generally ask me for are better photos of their backsides...

Now, i'm not saying that the above photo of the women's backsides in swimsuits is art that I would hang on my wall or the work of someone I want to support, but merely saying that we don't have any right to say "No, this is absolutely wrong and everything like it is wrong, and no one should be doing such things."

Luckless wrote in post #17201162
I photograph a lot of roller derby, and one of the things players (mainly women in their mid 20s to 30s) generally ask me for are better photos of their backsides...

Now, i'm not saying that the above photo of the women's backsides in swimsuits is art that I would hang on my wall or the work of someone I want to support, but merely saying that we don't have any right to say "No, this is absolutely wrong and everything like it is wrong, and no one should be doing such things."

a woman in their 20-30's who ASK for their bum shot is different from unknowing under-age girls who have their bum shot taken without their knowledge.

You can't be unaware that under-age girls are exploited on the net on various sites that aren't photography based

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17201196
a woman in their 20-30's who ASK for their bum shot is different from unknowing under-age girls who have their bum shot taken without their knowledge.

You can't be unaware that under-age girls are exploited on the net on various sites that aren't photography based

Except when they're out in public with no expectation of privacy then they have forfeited their right to privacy and to not be photographed.

Don't want to be photographed while wearing something like that out in public? Sadly the only actual answer is to wear something different.

Stalking is illegal. Harassing is illegal. Taking a photo of someone as they walk by? Not illegal, nor should it ever be.