TEXAS LAW AGAINST IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Luckless wrote in post #17201231
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.

Which, as stated before, is a double edged sword. Is it right for someone that gets off on kids to be able to photograph kids playing on a playground? Most people with a moral compass pointing in the right direction will agree that it's not. Is it legal? As long as they're not breaking any kind of restraining order or shooting where they're legally not allowed to.

The thing is, we have to live with possibilities like that to be able to have the freedom to go out and do things like street photography or we'll end up like other countries where it is illegal to do so. So what would you rather have? Protection against this scenario with it being illegal to photograph people in public without their explicit consent or the possibility that someone will be using photos they legally take for some devious purpose so you can go out and have the freedom to photograph people in public places?

Now that we get off the appropriate clothing, let's assume that for a moment the photo is tasteless instead of dirty. Well, then the next question to ask is whether the photographer is skilled or not. Because to me, if you assume it's a dirty photo and the photographer had indecent thought when taking the photo, then we have to assume that this photo is thoughtfully composed for such. So, why is the bottom bikini part near the rule of third but in smack middle? Why isn't this photo shot vertically and shot tighter around the subject? Why isn't the DoF more shallow to emphasize the subject? Sure, it could be indecent photographer with no skill also. But my point is that it could also be the other way around. I don't know about you all, but for me I never come back with all 100% keeper every time I shoot, always less. It could have been the only picture the photographer have to illustrate the contrast of clothing around the beach that is sharp and don't show any face. Sure, some of you and me would have have more than a few if aimed for such topic(even without any dirty thought). One of them could look pretty similar to this. It could have been at the spurt of the moment, and thought "hm, that's a way to show contrast(not as in color)" and take a snap.

someone0 wrote in post #17201539
Now that we get off the appropriate clothing, let's assume that for a moment the photo is tasteless instead of dirty. Well, then the next question to ask is whether the photographer is skilled or not. Because to me, if you assume it's a dirty photo and the photographer had indecent thought when taking the photo, then we have to assume that this photo is thoughtfully composed for such. So, why is the bottom bikini part near the rule of third but in smack middle? . . .

Even good compositions don't use the rule of thirds all the time. Anyway, if the photographer was looking for dirty-picture opportunities in public, where people were walking and he was walking, he'd have to shoot quickly. Not much chance to compose when you and your subjects are moving and someone can step in front of you at any moment.

My opinion: the clothing is tasteless, not the photo. Also my opinion: bidkev wasn't trying to make porn or a G&N shot. For that, he would have chosen a better-looking subject (the older one), left out the child entirely, and smoothed the subject's skin. bidkev has other street shots in the Urban & Travel forum. They aren't indecent. Some of them show people who are interesting in various ways.

I'm also slightly familiar with said pink bikini photographer from a couple of threads I read he posted in. I'm familiar enough to say I don't think he's a perv that likes to take pictures of peoples butts. What I do know is he takes a lot of pictures in a beach town and also likes to do street photography. I also believe that he does some street photography using hyper-focal and shooting from the hip(which can be useful for street photography even if you're not looking to get pervy shots), so if this was the case on the day of that shot it could have simple been he saw one big and one small in pink bikinis(which are common to see on and around the beach) and thought it would be a cool shot. If there was only the larger girl/woman in the shot I'd assume it was just meant to be a pervy butt shot.

It saddens me that people get unknowingly get exploited for undesirable reasons and it sickens me that it's often children. I have to say that I'd much rather have these people unknowingly have some sickos get their rocks to some pictures of them than to have any physical and/or emotional harm done to them by being forced into taking these shots or god forbid actual acts.

Absolutely Fabulous wrote in post #17201127
Can you point me to the thread of male bum shots?

I can point you to the thread of male wallet shot. Sexual objectification for females. Success objectification for males. That's how pair bonding works for most people.

And bodybuilding, firefighter's calendars, channing tatum...etc are all male bum shots. In either case the "personality" doesn't matter. What's on display in the picture is either a role or a status.

Back to some of the previous discusion that wasn't related to pervy shots. I have a some questions for those of you that don't think anyone should be taking pictures of children that aren't their own, why would you even want to, it's creepy, etc. I used to do a lot of travel photography and aside from getting shots of the sights I liked to try and get shots of the locals to show their culture and how they live their lives or maybe just because I thought it would make an interesting photo. If the shot happened to include children I wouldn't think twice about it.

I also have another shot I'm to lazy to go find and upload from the same trip of a pre/early teen girl wearing tradition Peruvian dress standing on a hill side that same questions could be asked. Now on the shot I'm about post I can understand those don't like to photograph distraught, homeless, etc. may not have taken the shot and I;m not sure if anything like that would apply to this little girl or if she just happened to be a little girl that got dirty playing outside.

So if you saw a scene like this pop up in front of you why wouldn't want to take a shot of it? How could I have asked her parents for permission? The shot have been gone, in this particular case I had no time after the fact to ask since I had no idea who her parents were nor did I have time to find them. What's creeping about taking this shot? What's whatever else you think is wrong about me a taking this photo of this random child?

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/gRV1​EH

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oKYR​54

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oLMZ​d5

why do people keep posting pictures like this. the court case has to do with people taking sexual type pictures. The abc story gives two main examples, hidden bathroom cams and a sex offender taking pics of highschool cheerleaders. So obviously thats the direction the law was going. Call it art or freedom but i call it like it is.

elitejp wrote in post #17202353
why do people keep posting pictures like this. the court case has to do with people taking sexual type pictures. The abc story gives two main examples, hidden bathroom cams and a sex offender taking pics of highschool cheerleaders. So obviously thats the direction the law was going. Call it art or freedom but i call it like it is.

I didnt read the original story, but bathroom cam = clearly illegal, taking pics of highschool cheerleaders = clearly legal (regardless of who takes the photo).

elitejp wrote in post #17202353
why do people keep posting pictures like this. the court case has to do with people taking sexual type pictures.

Because other people have said in this thread that photographing other people's children without a parent's consent is always wrong. There have even been implied threats of doing bodily harm to a photographer if they caught one taking pictures of their kid. Some of us who think those parents' view is extreme posted kid photos that we think are okay and challenged them to tell us what's offensive about the photos.

lovemyram4x4, good luck getting a useful answer from any of the parents who hold that extreme view. Don't count on it. None of the rest of us got one.

yep, it was talley who said it jokingly in response to having a pervert take pictures of his children in swimsuits. At least thats how i read it.

It wasn't only talley, and I don't know how jokey the people were who expressed their opinions.

lovemyram4x4 wrote in post #17201905
Back to some of the previous discusion that wasn't related to pervy shots. I have a some questions for those of you that don't think anyone should be taking pictures of children that aren't their own, why would you even want to, it's creepy, etc. I used to do a lot of travel photography and aside from getting shots of the sights I liked to try and get shots of the locals to show their culture and how they live their lives or maybe just because I thought it would make an interesting photo. If the shot happened to include children I wouldn't think twice about it.

I also have another shot I'm to lazy to go find and upload from the same trip of a pre/early teen girl wearing tradition Peruvian dress standing on a hill side that same questions could be asked. Now on the shot I'm about post I can understand those don't like to photograph distraught, homeless, etc. may not have taken the shot and I;m not sure if anything like that would apply to this little girl or if she just happened to be a little girl that got dirty playing outside.

So if you saw a scene like this pop up in front of you why wouldn't want to take a shot of it? How could I have asked her parents for permission? The shot have been gone, in this particular case I had no time after the fact to ask since I had no idea who her parents were nor did I have time to find them. What's creeping about taking this shot? What's whatever else you think is wrong about me a taking this photo of this random child?


Here's a couple more I recently took during the opening ceremony of the race. In the I thought it was pretty cool that one of the last things the Dad wanted to do prior to racing was spend some time with his son and wanted capture him doing it. In the second I always thought the little ones were so cute wearing their ear muffs at the track so guess what when I saw one in front of me a snapped a shot.

Again why wouldn't I want to these shots? Do you really think at this moment in time his parents want to be bother by me asking if it's OK to take pictures of their son? I bet you that they expect it to be happening and if they didn't want to they'd leave him at home or in the trailer. What's creepy about either of these shots? etc. etc. etc.??
[UrFlickr

seems reasonable to me

OhLook wrote in post #17202517
Because other people have said in this thread that photographing other people's children without a parent's consent is always wrong. There have even been implied threats of doing bodily harm to a photographer if they caught one taking pictures of their kid. Some of us who think those parents' view is extreme posted kid photos that we think are okay and challenged them to tell us what's offensive about the photos.

lovemyram4x4, good luck getting a useful answer from any of the parents who hold that extreme view. Don't count on it. None of the rest of us got one.

The pictures above arent of Kids expressly they are of a moment that happens to have a child in it. the kind of thing that most were tlaking about that had negative opinions about photographing children were the ones Gurrila style in the bushes of kids at pools in swimwear or at a playground.

And the one above with JUST the child in it CLEARLY showcases the poverty in a foreign country or whever it was taken... It differs 100% from the sneaky bathing suit picture on the previous page, you are lying to yourself if you cant see the fdifference.

electricme wrote in post #17203363
The pictures above arent of Kids expressly they are of a moment that happens to have a child in it. the kind of thing that most were tlaking about that had negative opinions about photographing children were the ones Gurrila style in the bushes of kids at pools in swimwear or at a playground.

And the one above with JUST the child in it CLEARLY showcases the poverty in a foreign country or whever it was taken... It differs 100% from the sneaky bathing suit picture on the previous page, you are lying to yourself if you cant see the fdifference.

But the law is blind. The people who insist that they control the right to have their child photographed in public would effectively prevent the above images from being taken. The failing in the texas law is that the language of law placed an emphasis on outcome. It said that images taken for sexual gratification is wrong, but how can they know? Photographer A & B take substantially similar shots. Photographer A is a respected artist known for street photography, B is a creeper. Even though the shots are the same in terms of content the texas law makes one illegal because of bad intent. Its never as clear as that scenario of course.

On top of that there is the issue of the creeping definition of victimization. Even if a creeper takes such a shot anonymously how is the child ultimately harmed?

electricme wrote in post #17203363
The pictures above arent of Kids expressly they are of a moment that happens to have a child in it. the kind of thing that most were tlaking about that had negative opinions about photographing children were the ones Gurrila style in the bushes of kids at pools in swimwear or at a playground.

And the one above with JUST the child in it CLEARLY showcases the poverty in a foreign country or whever it was taken... It differs 100% from the sneaky bathing suit picture on the previous page, you are lying to yourself if you cant see the fdifference.

Why not reverse the situation?

The west can be a foreign country to some, who may consider a child in a bikini to be oversexualized. For them it would be a foreign concept and a social commentary on the way the natives of the land dress their tween children.