Pixiq

Are there any other times when photography / videography would be a crime?

Wow… That kid just went full retard.

If the lady had caught him, I’m sure she would have thrown him through the shelving and then some! Fucking punk

The federal law you refer to is meant to stop secret recording when a person has an expectation of privacy. I know that in few state, if a woman is in public, she has almost no expectation to privacy (even to “upskirting”).
http://www.pollsb.com/polls/p9431-oklahoma_court_rules_public_upskirt_ph...

And if you think about it, it is a very murky area of the law. If a woman is in a bikini at the beach, can you not photograph her? Well what if she is at the park and her skirt flips up? Or what if she is wearing clothing that is transparent under the right circumstances? You are going to be hard pressed to define a law that criminalizes all the acts you find offensive without also taking away first amendment freedoms of photographers.

Everyone remember the Paris Hilton car photos? Who should be arrested there?

Just for the record, I think the act of taking pictures up a woman’s dress is disgusting and vile.

At least we got a great headline out of this locally:

Police show gadgets inside man’s pants

INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. (WANE) – Police have revealed a network of gadgets found inside a Fort Wayne man’s pants that they believe he used to take video up women’s skirts at an Indianapolis mall.

David Delagrange, 40, was arrested in Indianapolis, Saturday, after police say he used a camera attached to his shoe to look up women’s skirts in Castleton Mall.

…

Of course, as Bob points out, the law doesn’t always cover it:

http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/Wyss-calls-for-anti-upskirt-law-again

“Last year, NewsChannel 15 discovered a loophole in that law when an Ashley man was accused of taking pictures up a girl’s skirt with a cell phone. The Dekalb County prosecutor said she could not press voyeurism charges, because the law only covers dwellings and places where a person is expected to disrobe.”

http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/crime/shoe-cam-yoyeur-charges-dropped

“According to Indiana statute, voyeurism is defined as peeping in a dwelling or dressing room. Videotaping up someone’s skirt does not apply. And in court today, the prosecution conceded it doesn’t have a voyeurism case and agreed to drop those charges.”

…

Some work to be done there, yet.
Michaelk42 recently posted..Unsurprisingly- Pogan gets no real punishment

Yeah Rance – never go full retard. Plus she looked like she was in her 60s, so who the hell would want to see those pictures anyway?
Jake Stichler recently posted..Net Worth Update- August 2010

JS #6,

70 year-olds.

Carlos don’t forget this royal POS. Hmm, something tells me the guy in FL wont get as many breaks. Despite the fact that this FBI guys actions were both deliberate and premeditated.

FBI Police Officer Guilty of Invasion of Privacy

“Charles Hommema will spend a year on probation.”

FAIRMONT — After a daylong bench trial Marion County Magistrate Hank Middlemas found FBI Police Officer Charles Homemma, of Buckhannon guilty of invasion of privacy and not guilty of conspiracy.

Middlemas sentenced Hommema to six months in prison, then suspended that sentence and placed Hommema on a year of probation.

Hommema will also have to pay a $250 fine plus arrest fees and court costs.

Hommema and another officer, Gary Sutton Jr., of New Milton, were arrested in April for using a security camera to watch girls in a dressing room, during the Cinderella Project event held at the Middletown Mall on April 4.

Between 9:34 a.m. and 11 a.m. they pointed the FBI security cameras used in the mall at one of five makeshift dressing rooms set up for the event, court documents say, and caught….

http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=71689

This just happened in Finland too. A man was caught with a camera in his suit case filming womens bottoms. Curiously the police issued a statement that there was no law that applied to the situation. He was then charged with public indicency, lost his camera to the county and was fined with 12 day tickets. That means the fine is the amount the guy makes money in 12 days.

There are also limits to what you can shoot and then publish. Even in public, there are often circumstances where people have an expectation of privacy. This generally includes not only public bathrooms and dressing rooms, but also things like the back of ambulances and ‘wardrobe malfunctions’ if they aren’t news worthy. In my photojournalism textbook, they say that in many places shooting these events is illegal, even in places where you won’t end up in criminal court, you can often get sued in civil court after the fact.

Actualy MDL you are wrong there if it can be seen from a public vantage point with out a telephoto then it can be captured on film. How ever you look at it if the ambulance is on a public street and you can photo in the back of it there is no exspectation of privacy. Now Public bathrooms where there is a door that can be locked yes there is espectation of privacy. Even waredrob malfunctions can be published it doesnt matter what it is. Public Means NO EXSPECTATION OF PRIVACY.

sorry shouldnt be MDL it should be Mike
my bad

ABD #11,

No, the expectation of privacy begins when you enter that public restroom, or the actual dressing room at a department store. This has been settled by the courts over and over again.

And most States would smack you hard for an upskirt, unless she was purposely wide spread legged, and no walking up stairs doesn’t count…Really, why would this be debatable?

Notice Ariel i said yes there is exspectation of privicy in Public restrooms dressing rooms those places yes where there is a DOOR that can be closed.

This kind of thing’s been going on in Japan for years already. Even the shoe cam thing, it’s happened more than once in the past.

Personally I don’t get it, even posed up-skirt shots (where the model was willing) just aren’t very titillating, unless the lady forgot her undies that day. (And not even then really.) It’s definitely not worth the risk of getting caught, even without criminal or civil charges. Add those in and it’s even sillier to bother with it. If you want to see that type of thing, go Google it, should be plenty you can find for free, without getting yourself slapped and/or arrested.

ABD #14,

The distinction I was making on public restrooms is that it doesn’t matter if the door locks, it can be a swinging door or no door such as at airports. The entire restroom is off limits (think urinals). As are dressing rooms, whether the door locks or not. My daughters go into dressing rooms with only a draw cloth but you still can’t take pictures. It’s a minor point, but that is what makes law.

Change “lock” to “closes”. The entire area is off limits to photography unless by agreement.

Here’s another episode of a cop illegally filming a teenage girl:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/howard/bs-md-ho-schmitt-indict...

Indictment says Laurel police officer hid camera in teen’s bedroom
Edward Charles Schmitt indicted on sexual abuse, surveillance charges

A Laurel city police corporal was indicted in Howard County this week on charges that he secretly took video of his girlfriend’s teenage daughter using a camera he had hidden in her bedroom closet.

Edward Charles Schmitt, 37, of North Laurel, Howard County, is charged with one count of sexual abuse of a minor, two counts of visual surveillance and one count of camera surveillance. According to charging documents, he had hidden a video camera and photographed himself performing a lewd act, and also captured images of the girl from August 2009 until Feb. 28. He was prohibited from making any contact with the victim in the case. The Baltimore Sun does not identify victims of sexual crimes.

Laurel city police issued a statement Friday that said Schmitt had been suspended and his police powers revoked since at least May 21, when Howard police began investigating the case.

@ABD #11
You do, in fact, have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside an ambulance, emergency van, or rescue helicopter. While the doors are open, shoot away, but once the doors are closed, even if you can see in through the windows just fine, there is precedent for a civil suit based on invasion of privacy if you shoot and publish.
Laws vary from state to state, but you are treading on thin ice if you shoot and publish this kind of stuff.

Google ‘Shulman v. Group W Productions, 59 Cal. Rptr.2d 434 (1997)’ for the case that is generally cited.

Re the lack of black white dichotomy as commenter Bob notes – check out this banned commercial that spans these issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUBfXR019dU

from fourthamendment.com

Defendant was arrested for “upskirting,” and a search warrant was obtained for his home, computer, and car to look for the storage device. The court concludes that “upskirting” in a shopping mall is not a crime under the Tennessee law for video recording in a place where there is an expectation of privacy. Therefore, the SW was issued under a mistake of law, and the case is reversed. State v. Gilliland, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 501 (June 17, 2010).*

(http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=pa_while_defendan...)

And not all the perps are civilians:

“A Laurel city police corporal was indicted in Howard County this week on charges that he secretly took video of his girlfriend’s teenage daughter using a camera he had hidden in her bedroom closet.”

Carson, Larry. “Officer Indicted: Laurel Police Officer Faces Howard County Charges of Sexual Abuse – Baltimoresun.com.” Baltimore Sun. 6 Aug. 2010. Web. 09 Aug. 2010. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/howard/bs-md-ho-schmitt-indict... .

Wow, that kid was friggin bold!! I mean he got right in there! How did she not know??

Then he circles back! Unbelievable.

Good question:

“According to charging documents detailing the investigation, Schmitt’s 44-year-old girlfriend reported to Laurel police last winter that she found a video card in their bedroom and viewed it on her computer. It allegedly showed Schmitt setting up a video camera in her 15-year-old daughter’s bedroom closet and also included pictures of him standing naked and alone performing a lewd act in that room.”

Love is blind ’till the bedroom; but this was the wrong bedroom.

Wow! How did this lady not know he was doing this! I think it is soo immature hearing that guys are taking pictures up women’s skirts!

These people taking pictures up women’s skirts are going to get into so much trouble if they get caught.

“Last year, NewsChannel 15 discovered a loophole in that law when an Ashley man was accused of taking pictures up a girl’s skirt with a cell phone. The Dekalb County prosecutor said she could not press voyeurism charges, because the law only covers dwellings and places where a person is expected to disrobe.”

In Australia, when a court is interpreting legilation, they also take into account the ‘purpose/aim’ of that law. This prevents things like if the law says it is an offense in dwellings, houses and streets, but the offense was committed in a shopping mall which is neither. If the aim is to prevent voyeuristic style photography in violation of people’s expectation to privacy,then the court will presume it means in shopping centres too – That is until parliament amends the law to CLEARLY state what they want, in the paragraphs of the law.