Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004

[WarEaglemtn]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009LI0

Try this link also. It is on photo.net & has a nice image by Bob Atkins that qualifys under this act.

Too many unanswered questions on this one. Too broad in its ability to be used as an excuse for abusing the rights of innocent street photographers.

I am of the belief that "if you can see it, you can photograph it". This proposed bill raises so many gray areas that it is a major worry. As I said, it will only make more lawyers rich... while at the same time their clients will pay through the nose in money, time lost & reputations shattered.

 

[Andy K]

Aggie. I say it how I see it. I don't dress up my posts with fine words, or great long essays. I simply say what I feel.

It strikes me there was more protest against my use of the term 'lab monkey' than there was against a person being singled out purely on the basis of their racial appearance. I guess thats a cultural thing.

Having worked in manufacture and engineering my entire adult life, I have never looked down on anyone because of the job they do, but I have been treated with contempt and looked down upon my many college educated intellectual snobs who see manual workers as beneath them. I will, however, look down on anyone who does a crap job and does not care that they are doing a crap job. In Britain on a saturday, they really are lab monkeys, they do a bad job, are sullen and rude, and do not give a fig for the job. End of story. (by crap job I mean they do a bad job of the work in hand, produce poor results etc. I do not mean working a crap saturday job).

Also my points about the new legislation are meant to indicate just how wide open to abuse said legislation will be. I doubt anyone here disagrees with prosecuting perverts for surrepticiously violating a persons intimate privacy.

Mark. You say don't let these things happen to me, stand up and protest. I suggest you listen to your own advice. I protested and campaigned right through the late seventies, the eighties and early nineties on many issues, miners rights, apartheid, live aid, poll tax, nuclear weapons, environment... I know how to protest.

I also know how insidious Government can be in getting restrictive law into place. Government will say 'This new law will protect you from...' public say 'Great idea!' then further down the line public says 'Hold on, why can't I do this?' and Government says 'But this is the Law you agreed to.'

Such is the slippery slope you stand on today.

 

[Ed Sukach]

I think the INTENT here is good ... but, the possibilities of abuse are frightening. Am I reading this correctly, or is there a lack of consideration of a "complaint"? If the deed is done, whether or not the affected subject gives a blit - there is an automatic violation of Federal Law ... and ... I don't know - OK, it is not a nice thing to do... but ONE YEAR in a FEDERAL Penitentiary ...?

The "underwear" bit --- I've been watching United States Open Tennis - given the shortness of the tennis skirts on some of the female participants... isn't there a real danger that the television crews are bound to violate this law by video-ing the "undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, or buttocks,.." of the female participants without their prior permission? - Or isn't what is worn under those dresses to be considered "undergarments"? Is there a need to define "undergarments" ... opacity, thickness, tensile strength, hardness...??

Anyone here old enough to remember "Mo" Connoly and her lace panties?

Good heavens -- I just had a thought ... the "Exposure" during the Super Bowl ... would all those manning the video cameras be locked up in Federal Prisons...?

 

[doughowk]

We in USA operate under the Roman rather than English legal system, ie we enforce to the letter of the law rather than allow common sense to enter into our deliberations. Lawyers, law enforcement officials and others who disparage common sense & rational deliberation can site precedent & a broad interpretation of the law to intimidate/harass the citizen body. It is especially effective if there is some sort of we/they difference ( eg race, class,age group) between the intimidators & the intimidated. If you truly believe that Ashcroft/Rove/Bush & their local counterparts will not use this law just as they have used the Patriot Act to intimidate cultural & political opponents, then I have some recently flooded Florida swamp land that you might be interested in - just need to wade a bit to get to it ;-)

 

[Flotsam]

The "underwear" bit --- I've been watching United States Open Tennis - given the shortness of the tennis skirts on some of the female participants... isn't there a real danger that the television crews are bound to violate this law by video-ing the "undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, or buttocks,.." of the female participants without their prior permission?

Even if were to be considered to be underwear, I would think that running and jumping around in a costume designed to show it off in a large arena full of people and cameras of all sorts would tend to obviate any expectation of privacy.

 

[mark]

This is not a law yet. It is a bill. There is a lot that needs to happen before and, at least I hope, the various professional photo groups have their lawyers looking over this one really carefully. I've fired off a letter to the gvt expressing my opinion and suspect many here will do the same. It will be up to us and those who stand up for our ability to take photographs to put pressure on the gvt to write this bill with a clearer definition of just what video voyerism is. Most of all don't stop taking pictures in public. Just use your common sense.

Andy
my point was that YOU have allowed the paranoid politically correct weenies to dictate YOUR actions. I have not. You have allowed others to have a lot of power over you, and you have freely given them that power. Never complain about losing freedoms you once enjoyed but have freely given away. It sounds as if you were once a guy that stood up for what they believed in. What happened?

As to your comment about taking my own advice I do. I have a camera with me when ever I am in the city. If I see a scene to shoot I shoot it, as long as I am in a public place. If the light is great in a private place I ask permission. If they say yes I take the photo. If they say no I don't. In the public area no one has the right to tell me I can't, I have told people that, and the police have backed me up. I have a camera at the playground or park whenever my son is there, and we did not get there on our bikes. I work at a school and have the audacity to photograph the kids as they play on the playground. I was only questioned once. When the photos came back and the person who questioned it saw them they had no problems. Use your common sense and the PC pricks have nothing to complain about. By the way the lady who complained asked if she could get a copy of a shot her daughter was in, I just gave her the one I had. I don't shoot for money and give the photos away to the kids if they are in them and they want them. Otherwise they hang in my window until I put up another bunch. Yes people have told me they would never do what i was doing because of some stupid rational or another, but hell that's their loss. If someone wants me to take a photo of their kid I do. Of course I have never been asked to take an inappropriate shot and would not even if asked.

I better get back to work now.

 

[anyte]

I am of the belief that "if you can see it, you can photograph it".

This is a philosophy that I don't understand. Why do some photographers believe it's within their rights to photograph anything under the sun without having to answer to anyone? If I'm sitting in my back yard I DO in fact consider it to be a private moment in which no one has a right to photograph me even if I'm wearing snowpants and a parka.

Freedom of speech and expression shouldn't mean that those with the available tools have free reign to do whatever they want with those tools.

I have a right to be in public without someone photographing me. I have a right to be at the beach without being photographed. I have a right to sit at the park without being photographed. I have a right to go and do anything I want without someone pointing a camera at me and capturing my image. You do NOT have a right to my likeness or my image. You have no right to my person or my body under any circumstance unless I give it to you first.

If I'm at a parade or some public event then there actually is an expectation that I might be photographed because events are usually published in papers or on TV.



On sporting events - those are venues in which everyone is already aware that they are videotaped (for television) and photographed (for newpapers and magazines). There is no expectation of privacy while they are on the field/court.

 

[Andy K]

Photographing kids at play on the school playground? Such a thing is totally impossible in Britain. Even if I wished to photograph only the school building I would first have to arrange permission from the school head, arrange a time to photograph outside of school hours and then be accompanied by a member of staff as I took photos.

The climate as regards photographing kids which are not your own is extremely paranoid in Britain these days, and simply is not worth the hassle of doing.

It is even forbidden to videotape school plays and nativities 'in case the video footage should fall into the hands of paedophiles'.

Seriously Mark, go anywhere near a kid who is not yours with a camera over here and you are risking being 'investigated' or even worse being labelled a paedophile. For those reasons kids are not even a remote consideration as subjects for my photography.

That is why you should be questioning this Bill and many other restrictions which your country is now enforcing under the guise of 'security'.
As for my no longer protesting? One of Margaret Thatcher's stormtroopers damn near caved my skull in during the Trafalgar Sq poll tax riot, my crime? I took a photo. I ended up with seventeen stitches in my head, a camera smashed to smithereens and a ruined film.

Now I have responsibilities I let younger people do the protesting.

 

[c6h6o3]

I have a right to be in public without someone photographing me. I have a right to be at the beach without being photographed. I have a right to sit at the park without being photographed. I have a right to go and do anything I want without someone pointing a camera at me and capturing my image.

I don't think you do. Maybe you should, but that's a different issue altogether. While there are prohibitions under the 4th Amendment regarding unlawful search and seizure of your house, papers and possessions, there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.

 

[c6h6o3]

That is why you should be questioning this Bill and many other restrictions which your country is now enforcing under the guise of 'security'.
As for my no longer protesting? One of Margaret Thatcher's stormtroopers damn near caved my skull in during the Trafalgar Sq poll tax riot, my crime? I took a photo. I ended up with seventeen stitches in my head, a camera smashed to smithereens and a ruined film.

What a tragedy that the country which gave use the Magna Carta and the foundations of our legal system has come to this. We're not quite to that point here in the US yet, but we'll get there.

No piece of 'fine art' is worth it, guys. Be careful where and what you shoot.

 

[mark]

Anyte

Here in lies the very big grey area. This is the way I understand it. If you are in a public place you have no expectation of privacy. Say you are sitting under a tree on a park bench in a skimpy bathing suit and a person wants to take a photo of the path and the tree and the bench and all the lovely happy people, they have the right to do so. a person has the right to take a photograph of the area you are in. There is no question to that. It becomes a question when that person wants to take a photo of you specifically. Hence the grey area. Technically that person does not have to ask, because you are in a public place. Ethically they should.

Technically and ethically you have the right to ask them not to take your picture or do something that will in turn ruin the photograph. You also have the right to leave. It seems that under this law a person would still be able to take a photograph of where you are sitting even if you are scantily clad in a bathingsuit at the beech, since bathing suits are considered outer wear even if they cover less area than a thimble would. They would not be able to single you out of your surroundings and shoot up your skirt, or down your shirt. I think the law is worded in a way that is vague and with vagueness come abuse because there is not a specific set of rules someone would have to follow, and the interpretation of the law would be left to prosecuters and worst of all policmen and even worse than that the average citizen, who like you may not want a person take a picture of the area they are in, in a public area.


You may not like getting your picture taken while you are hanging out in public but the alternative is to have no public photography at all and in my mind that is not acceptable.

Okay I am really going back to work now.

 

[Andy K]

What a tragedy that the country which gave use the Magna Carta and the foundations of our legal system has come to this. We're not quite to that point here in the US yet, but we'll get there.

No piece of 'fine art' is worth it, guys. Be careful where and what you shoot.

It is worse than you know.

The Scots have a Scottish Parliament to deal with Scots issues, the Welsh have a Welsh Assembly to deal with Welsh issues, the Northern Irish have their assembly too.

England has no official constitutional recognition as a sovereign state. England has no Parliament of it's own. The English have NO representation. Soon England is to be broken up into 'Regional Assemblies' all competing with each other within Europe. But there will be NO England.

Please do not think the 'British' government is an English Government, it is not.

How is this possible? Unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and a slimey weasel called Blair who will do anything to become the first president of a Federal Europe.

 

[anyte]

Anyte

Here in lies the very big grey area.

Did you read what I responded to? "I am of the belief that 'if you can see it, you can photograph it'." That kind of attitude is what will sink us all. Everyone is only picking out the "public" spaces that I mentioned and not the privacy of my back yard and the privacy of my living room. If you go out on the streets and start proclaiming to everyone that you have a right to photograph anything, everything, and "everyone" you see people WILL stand up and fight back.

I have an expectation of privacy everywhere I go - whether that agrees with the law or anyone's philosophy. I don't even like leaving my home for that matter. And I especially hate being photographed. I can guarantee you that I am not alone in how I feel and nasty comments such as 'I am of the belief that "if you can see it, you can photograph it'." Will give rise to people such as myself to stand up and make sure that we are treated with respect and consideration when we must venture into public. No one can live without going out in a public space. Saying there is no expectation of privacy is an abuse - you are taking advantage of the fact that people have no other choice than to be in public spaces.

I wouldn't even take this stand if people weren't saying they can photograph anything they want. I'm a human being, an individual before I'm a photographer. I'll protect and defend my rights as a human being before I defend the rights of photographers.

Those who photograph people within reason and consider it a courtesy to ask permission - thank you.

 

[mark]

I, personally don't understand the "if I can see I can shoot it" attitude either but I have to coexist with those who have it.

I caught that you said in your back yard as well as in public. I don't think anyone here says you have no expectation of privacy in your home or your back yard. The grey area is when you are in public. In public you have to live with others and accept their rights along with yours.

Of course this does not mean you can't make a rude gesture(freedom of expression), move, or ask them to wait for you to get out of the scene.

Most times it is impossible to ask everyone in a scene permission

 

[Magic Rat]

I have an expectation of privacy everywhere I go -

Saying there is no expectation of privacy is an abuse

The former: Unfortunately, most of the rulings that have come down from our courts don't agree with you.

The latter: You may be right, and he people who drafted this bill seem to agree with you. While in public you have a reasonable expectation that your private parts/undies won't be captured without your permission.
The Rat

 

[anyte]

The rights of photographers do not supersede those of all other people. We ALL have rights. The bill is intended to protect some of those rights that are already violated on an increasing basis by people with that "if I can see it, I can shoot it" attitude.

The law isn't going to crack down on photo journalism. They aren't going to crack down on sports photography. They aren't going to bring about an end to street photography - it's all used in the news, magazines, and art. Any one who thinks different isn't thinking. Do you people think for an instant that the magazines and newspapers that rely so heavily on images would take it laying down? Do you think they'll all roll over and let the government stop their freedom of speech? I don't think so. Are news stations going to stop running clips of peple on the beach? Are they going to stop showing kids playing in pools?


Everyone is so concerned about their own personal rights ... I gave that right back. I don't like being photographed but I can accept that if I'm a part of a group that creates a scene, fine, there's nothing to be done about it. I would not be so accepting if I'm singled out and photographed though - and I can't be expected to be aware that I'm being photographed either.

The links that have been provided to show how this "law" (which is only a bill) is already abused is pointless. I don't know those people, what happened, why it happend, what the police feel they have for evidence, etc. That's not enough to prove to me that there is any abuse taking place of a law that is still only a bill.

 

[Andy K]

Anyte, the links posted show how recent new Laws already in place have already been severely abused. Those links were used as an example to show how this Bill, if it becomes Law, is open to abuse.

No-one disputes your privacy in your own home/backyard. But if I was in my High St, taking shots of the area and someone complained to me? I'd think they were being petty (and I am NOT saying that you are!), but I would point the camera in a different direction. Until they had gone and then I would carry on as before.

And yes you are right, we ALL have rights. Just as you have a right to privacy, I have a right to indulge my hobby.

 

[sparx]

http://www.buggrit.com/rights.html

 

[TPPhotog]

Don't know if you have a verson in the states, but in the UK we have the Bureau of Freelance Photographers it is open to any photographer amateur or pro and have saved me from scrapes several times

 

[Les McLean]

And before you say it is no concern of mine, as a UK citizen what happens in the US usually happens here within a short time.

Andy, it's already happening. For the past 6 years I've done a street photography workshop in Brighton that starts in Brighton Railway Station. I was there last Thursday and stopped by the Transport Police because we did not ask for permission we were also told not to photograph the station because of the threat of terrorism, as if terrorists would choose to send 12 people with about £20,000's worth of cameras on show. When given permission by the station manager we had to sign in and promise to ask permission of the subject before we made a photograph, can you imagine the difficulty when making a general shot across the station. This is political correctness gone stark raving bonkers and also an indication the the terrorists are winning.

 

[TPPhotog]

.... This is political correctness gone stark raving bonkers and also an indication the the terrorists are winning.

Les I completely agree with you. Their aim was to cause disruption and fear, which is exactly what we are now seeing with mass paranoa from the authorities!

 

[Andy K]

Les,

I had the exact same situation on my local station a few weeks ago. I emailed the rail company (C2C) basically asking 'what the hell?' and got a reply stating they have NO problem with photography on ANY of their stations just so long as I did not use a tripod and did not impede the to and fro of passengers. I can forward both emails if you wish, IM me if you'd like to read them.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Les I completely agree with you. Their aim was to cause disruption and fear, which is exactly what we are now seeing with mass paranoa from the authorities!

Exactly. Those who have chosen to be active enemies are small in number - they cannot hope - even dimly - to have any effect by direct conflict. Their tactics were those of paranoia, causing us to self-destruct.

What they did in the 9-11 attack was horrendous: what we did in response was nothing short of psychotic. That attack succeeded in alienating the United States with the rest of the world; caused us to --- willingly -- give up our restraints on our own government and most of the freedoms we supposedly hold so sacred; engage in an unending pseudo-war, killing thousands of human beings, and draining our resources and funds; and causing massive rifts in our own political structure (or even worse - causing some sort of weird apathy). How can anyone say they have not succeeded?

I look at the whole situation now ... a nearly hoplessly tangled mess. I can't honestly think of a way out.

Maybe Ghandi's solution, when the British Commandant asked him, "But what else can we do?" Ghandi's answer, "Leave." The Commandant recoiled..., "But we can't just leave.." Ghandi, "But that is just what you WILL do."

 

[dr bob]

Maybe levity in uncalled for in this particular discussion, but I think you all may be amused by this little observation.

The U.S. Navy Submarine Base in Groton Ct., consists of two levels: the upper base where the quarters, chow hall et c. are situated, and the lower base where the u-no-what are located. Access to the lower base is very restricted and guarded by armed Marines (never argue with an armed Marine). There are signs everywhere indicating the absolute restriction of photography and cameras (and two-way communications) of any type. In beautiful downtown Groton there is (was) a sight-seeing boat at a pier with a giant sign, “…take pictures of nuclear submarines…) et c.

At the U.S. Naval Academy a few years before 911, I was single-handing my Classic-31 sloop, just beginning to raise sails when a Coast Guard boat came buzzing up demanding that I get away from their sea wall. I indicated to them that I was sailing alone and had my hands full at that moment and that I would tack away ASAP. This didn’t satisfy them and they made a veiled threat to which I had no recourse than to tell them to just shoot me because until I was able to return to the cockpit and man the tiller, there was absolutely nothing I could do. Now if I had had my Speed Graphic on my Manfrotto tripod on the foredeck, sliding 4x5 film holders in and out while bobbing about in the Severn - alone….

 

[mark]

Bob
Just look at your avatar. If that is not the picture of a terrorist I don't know what is. I mean hell Sailing alone in plain view, doing your damndest to get things going on your own. Pure and blantant terrorist tactics. I'm surprised they didn't send a shot over your bow. Now if you had had you graphic on a tripod they would have figured you were just a dumb tourist who did not know better, because no self respecting terrorist would use such an inconspicuous camera. It would have had to be a 12x20 for them to worry.