quote:Originally posted by Patrick: Public property = ok
*I believe it's if there's no sound
Not sure about that. I know that the sound aspect gets touchy when trying to prove something in court with evidence. For example, you can record all your phone conversations, just can't use them in court unless the person was informed that their voice was being recorded. You know, for "quality" purposes. LOL
quote:Originally posted by Patrick: Public property = ok
*I believe it's if there's no sound
Not sure about that. I know that the sound aspect gets touchy when trying to prove something in court with evidence. For example, you can record all your phone conversations, just can't use them in court unless the person was informed that their voice was being recorded. You know, for "quality" purposes. LOL
posted
This has been discussed a million times before. In a nutshell, U.S. law says:
Anything you can see IN a public place is fair game to be photographed, videotaped or audio recorded.
Anything you can see FROM a public place -- even if it's in someone's window, as long as YOU are in a public place -- is fair game to be photographed, videotaped or audio recorded, as long as you don't go to extreme measures (such as climbing a tree or setting up a ladder, etc.) to do so.
That said, be sure you REALLY understand what a public place is. A public place is something owned by a government, such as a road or a park. A business (such as a shopping mall or its parking lot) is NOT a public place. And, often, sidewalks are NOT public places ... they're frequently owned by the business or homeowner (although required to be placed by law).
There are certain, specific things you cannot do in some cities or states (such as upskirt photos) and, in some cases, you cannot legally sell photos in which people are identifiable without the permission of the people depicted. But, otherwise, everything else basically is on the table.
I've said the following before, and it bears repeating:
Folks, just use your heads here. Don't make a nuisance of yourselves and don't be blatant about what you're doing and you'll be fine. If someone tells you to stop, then please stop. And if you've created a scene where the police step in, whatever you do, don't go all "First Amendment" on them ... because, as the saying goes, "you might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride." In other words, you might have the law behind you, but it'll probably take a judge to agree with you.
You should be aware of your rights, but you should also be equally aware of your responsibilities.
Some FAQs ...
Q: Can I photograph people at a big event, like a concert or a ball game? A: If the event is being held on public property, such as a city park or a municipal stadium, then you're fine. The courts have upheld your right to photograph anything you see. If the event is being held on private property, such as a farm or an amusement park, then you might face some issues if someone of authority (such as the landowner or someone acting on his/her behalf) tells you to stop. But if you're at an event where photos are being taken anyway, who's gonna know? I mean, you're not stalking them or putting your camera lens only three inches away from their feet, right?
Q: Is is legal to take pictures of people without their consent? A: In the United States, it's perfectly fine in most circumstances, provided you're in a public place. You just can't sell the images without written permission from those people.
Q: Celebrities are a different thing, right? Isn't there a special law for paparazzi to film them to certain degree? A: Nope. Celebrity status has nothing to do with what you (or the paparazzi) can and cannot photograph. You might be thinking of how the U.S. courts define a "public figure," but that deals more with what you can legally say or write about them (as opposed to private individuals, where the standards are lower) and not whether you can photograph them. You can't legally invade someone's privacy regardless of whether they're a celebrity or a private citizen. If you are in a public place, you have no legal expectation of privacy.
Q: Pictures of civilians without their knowledge especially for sexual gratification or commercial purposes, that's illegal, right? A: Makes no difference whether you're using the photos to jack off or to line your birdcage ... as long as they're for your private use, you can do whatever you want with them. You cannot, however, *publish* pictures of someone without their consent, except in very limited circumstances (such as news coverage or for documentary purposes). The courts have held that "publishing" includes the Internet, and you'd have a hard time making a case that posting photos of someone on a sexually oriented forum is a news or documentary context. So be careful if you do that -- blur or crop the face and any other distinguishing characteristics. But as far as taking pictures goes, you're just fine as long as you follow the "public space" concept.
I am not an attorney and I don't play one on TV, either, so I am not offering legal advice. But I do professionally know what the law allows in most circumstances. (No, I'm not saying what I do for a living.)
option a) be totally upfront and honest. get the model's consent and let her know precisely what it will be used for. drawback - less likely to get all the models you solicit.
I'd take this option despite the drawback of not getting a model.
quote:Originally posted by feetness: [QB] Hey everyone,
I have been coming across a lot of posts on the net where poeple get either arrested or cautioned for taking pictures of female feet on the streets. I also have been taking a lot of candid shots of women's feet on trains and parks, and have also approached a lot of females in the last year asking them to pose for pictures. I am now seriously wondering if these things are actually allowed or not? I will post one link, where I understand why he got arrested... I mean he was taking pictures of underage girls...
Actually, I got a talking-to once in a park where I was playing frisbee golf. There happened to be a softball game going on, so I sauntered by and snapped a few clandestine pics of girls who were barefoot. Not as clandestine as I had thought, though.
Someone called a local cop who came over amiably and asked if he could talk with me. So we walked, and he asked me about what I was doing, and I didn't give him any bullshit. Another cop or two came by (slow day, I guess) and they were all pretty professional about it, but still a bit critical. (One cop called me "sick.")
The first cop was the one who was very professional. He eventually wrote me a thingie that said I permanently cannot go to the parks in that town--supposedly on penalty of being arrested for trespassing. I'm not sure that thingie can really hold up in court--how can they give you a punishment without due process, being found guilty of something, etc.? But I haven't tempted fate by going back.
They ran my ID through checks and came up with nothing (of course: I'm so clean I could piss bleach); the "you're sick" cop wanted to arrest me for something, but was told that there really was nothing they could arrest me for. "Mr.-You're-Sick" even wanted to try to get me for concealed carry in the park, and was told there's nothing illegal about it, since I'm licensed. I should mention that I had not gone out to the park with any express intention of taking feet pics; but the opportunity presented itself, and it was no big deal to have my camera with me in my bag. I don't typically endeavor specifically to take candids unless I happen to be in a feet-rich, anonymous-sort of venue.
I have read about people down here who have gone around taking pictures of women out in public, even weirdos who seem lascivious about it, and the long and the short of it is that there was nothing the lawmen could do about it because no one has a presumption to not have their picture taken since they're out in public. Do it in private and it might be another matter, I guess. But in public, unless you're trying to snap photos up a girl's skirt or something truly sick, you really can't get into legal trouble for it. You may take an upbraiding, though.
-------------------- You give pleasure to the feet, you give pleasure to the person. Posts: 1297 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by feetness: Thanks for the feeback on this already guys! I have to say I am always the type that is open and honest about what the pictures are for. This of course means I am being turned down over and over again, but in the end it is all worth it, i guess.
I think i will actively go and try and find the laws and rules that restrict me from doing certain things. It is needed especially if I want to do this on a regular basis.
For now I just hope that girls won't get too offended and freaked out and that i wont end up in front of a judge having to explain myself.
Keep posting your views on this matter please. I would love to see what you all think of this.
Oh, see, if you're not taking the pics in a furtive manner, but instead you are actually asking people if they'll let you take them, I don't see how you could get into any legal trouble. You could get asked to leave an area, by a property manager or something like that, or if the local cops get called they can have a tendency to want to run a "suspicious-acting" person out of the area regardless of whether they really have a legal standing to do so, just to "keep the peace" (and I can understand their reasons for doing so).
But if you are being non-creepy, and simply hanging out in an area and occasionally asking lady passers-by if they'll let you take pictures of their feet, I don't see how you could get into trouble. You may get called unflattering things on occasion, but arrested? Probably not.
-------------------- You give pleasure to the feet, you give pleasure to the person. Posts: 1297 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyler D.: omg, i read some of the comments on that youtube vid of the girl sleeping on the train.
there was a couple of comments from a guy who talked about the laws there in britain. i am very glad i don't live there.
Anyway, you can see for yourself how dangerous it can be to tape feet in that country just because of the laws:
quote:Originally posted by VillageInfo: Do you know ow stupid you are being????? On a British Train??? On a South West Train???? The number of people that BTP are arresting for alleged sexual offences - including those less severe than yours is very high. I suggest that if you want to avoid the sex offenders register, you refrain from your activities and delete all of these files from YouTube. This is voyeurism which is an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The police WILL prosecute, and quite rightly.
quote:Originally posted by VillageInfo: Voyeurism (section 67): For the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, and knowing that the other person does not consent to being observed, observing another person engaged in a private act Maximum penalty: 2 years
You might want to read sentencing guidelines for voyeurism. The fact that you've posted it on here makes it particularly bad. You'll go to jail if caught mate. Good luck!!!
I can't believe they would place foot fetishists on the sex offenders register just because of this miscontrued law that groups this behavior as invasion of privacy.
What's next? Is britain gonna make laws that police guys' thoughts?!? Foot men BEWARE!!!!
The Youtube video has been removed, unfortunately. I wanted to see it to judge. But that comment by the guy who said it's "voyeurism" is way off the mark. The guy's obviously not read and comprehended the part where it says, "observing another person engaged in a PRIVATE ACT."
You CANNOT call it "voyeurism" under that definition if it's a girl in public on a train! If she had a presumption of privacy--like, say, in a public bathroom stall--then yeah, it would be voyeurism, and actionable.
On the link to that London article, I found the following comment:
"People with foot fetishes derive sexual pleasure from feet, the same as other people would derive sexual pleasure from breasts, or nudity, or anything like that. Pleasuring yourself to a picture of a 14 year old girl's feet - to a person with a foot fetish - is the equivalent of someone without a foot fetish pleasuring themselves to a nude picture of an underage girl. A 14 year old is a child. How would you feel if you walked in on your friend pleasuring himself to your 14 year old sister's feet? No, wait. I've seen this one: You're right, I'm wrong. Right? You're gross, man. Really."
Here we have a very misguided fellow who seems to think that if we take sexual pleasure from seeing feet (as, in this case, in public) we should have sexual prurience laws directed at us just the same as if a person who has a "panty fetish" would if he were caught snooping up girl's dresses with his camera.
This fool is actually claiming that the law should look at foot fetishists as though they are doing something of a lewd and lascivious nature if WE look at feet, specifically because of what our predilection makes feet mean to us.
It would not surprise me if this guy would say that a foot fetishist who has pictures of a 13-year-old girl who is fully clothed but barefoot was in possession of "child porn." I would fully disagree. Porn must pertain to sexual parts of the body (essentially genitals and breasts) and cannot pertain as "sexual" to any other part even if certain people obtain sexual gratification from those parts. If you were dumb enough to reach out and tickle a girl's foot on a bench at a park, there may be something you could get into trouble for but it would certainly not be "sexual assault" just because you think of feet as "sexual."
-------------------- You give pleasure to the feet, you give pleasure to the person. Posts: 1297 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Keyfeet: to keep it simple, your not suppost to take pictures of anybody w/o consent from them.
This is a patently unfounded assertion, unless you are talking about politeness. Sure, it's considered impolite to take pictures of people without consent, but the fact is, it is done all the time, both privately and commercially, and it is most certainly not illegally to photograph anyone you want to if the person is out in a public place.
If this were not true, then you could sue the hell out of people who, working for companies, take pictures of shoppers in malls for use in their promotional materials. Or public music/art festivals. The examples are limitless. People simply do not have a presumption of privacy against having their photo taken in public.
-------------------- You give pleasure to the feet, you give pleasure to the person. Posts: 1297 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pjay: If this were not true, then you could sue the hell out of people who, working for companies, take pictures of shoppers in malls for use in their promotional materials. Or public music/art festivals. The examples are limitless. People simply do not have a presumption of privacy against having their photo taken in public.
Actually, you CAN sue if your likeness is used in promotional materials without your permission. The courts are very specific and very consistent about this. In the example you cited, chances are good that these are either professional models or ordinary people who have consented to their use (with or without compensation).
The courts have extended a few exceptions -- primarily for accredited news organizations doing legitimate reporting in the public interest -- but even those exceptions are getting tighter.
Let me say it again: Most places that you think are public places are not. Shopping malls are not. The only public places are those owned by a federal/state/local government, such as a road, public transit, a park, government building (and even then, some aren't considered truly public), etc.
Let me say this again as well: If it's taking place IN a public place, or if you can see it FROM a public place without extraordinary measures, you're fine to record it in any measure (photo, video, audio, stone etching, etc.) -- unless there are specific and posted ordinances prohibiting it (such as New York City's ban on photography in the subway system under Homeland Security laws).
Don't let anyone in authority tell you otherwise. They may give you a hard time, and they may make you feel uncomfortable, and they might even arrest you knowing it won't stand up in court, but your rights are your rights. Just know that you might have to fight for them ... and know that before you take the first picture. Good luck.
Cheers, DL
P.S. -- Again, I'm not an attorney. Again, this pertains to the United States only ... I have no idea how other countries approach this issue.
Posts: 841 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as far as other countries go, it appears pretty clear that in England, at least, people are considered free to do only those things that are on an enumerated list of approved activities. It seems that you don't have the right to do things in England unless a law specifically grants that right.
In the U.S., you are understood to be at liberty to do anything that is not expressly prohibited. England is going psycho-overboard with the regulation of daily activities by "subjects." It's pretty sickening.
-------------------- You give pleasure to the feet, you give pleasure to the person. Posts: 1297 | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was questioned by police in public as to the sustance of my picture taking.I enjoy snapping candids and only shoot from the ankle down.I told them exactly what I was doing and showed them the pictures and other than thinking I was wierd there was nothing they could do because I was in public and the shots were anonymous.Its the same as shooting an elbow or a knee or a hand for that matter.I think they just wanted to make sure there were no kids or anything illegal on the camera.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lovesize7s: other than thinking I was wierd there was nothing they could do
i know the feelin. i've had two undercover police literally ready to cuff and arrest me once, and they called back to their basse station to check and see if my weird foot fetish situation could put me behind bars, but they failed and could not arrest me.
i recall them coming back and telling me the outcome and saying it was my lucky day. the thing that rings in my memory the most is how they were both walking back to their undercover van and both like looking down and shaking their heads silently as they walked back.
it was almost as if they did not know what the world was coming to when they could not put a foot fetishist behind bars LOL
i won a victory for many desperate pervos that day, hee Hee
posted
It doesn't matter to me what the law says, or what have you.
Taking a picture of a human subject without express verbal, written, or any other kind of permissive consent is wrong.
-------------------- ~Eyes all around you~ ~Enter the labyrinth~ ~Visions of the hunted~ ~Beware the birchmen~ Posts: 584 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to have documentation for all of my models, along with ID's, yada, yada. I have a formula for going out and getting women to pose for me. In the end, money talks. If it is in public, that is fine, although I suggest a zoom lens, lol. Women do not appreciate being photographed without permission. London sounds lame though. I hear some of the laws are absolutely ridiculous.
posted
Hey Diabolicus,I am trying to get with you on your human subject comment.Does a foot have an identity?I suppose thats where we have a conflict.I could care less who is attached to it.Does that make me less ethical than you?I guess I am just a sucker for the chase.Many of you know that taking 500 pictures only nets you about 25 good in focus shots!!I put my camera on speed burst and shoot up to 2000 in a day!All of which are below the knee and below the ankle if I'm really lucky!Does National Geographic get signed permission from there topless african human subjects that get seen around the world!!I doubt it,and think of the money that gets generated by those magazines.I shoot for fun and the challenge.Cheers,B
Posts: 50 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Tongue]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
