William B. Harper, a prosecutor with the Sullivan County District Attorney’s Office, said his office was discussing whether to appeal the decision to the State Supreme Court... “We all recognize that if you shop at Walmart or pump gas, you’re going to be videotaped,” said Mr. Harper, who supervises the unit that prosecuted the case. “But that camera doesn’t zoom in on your privates.... If you’re taking a picture of someone’s intimate parts, that’s not something that society is willing to accept"....
“I did not mean to scare anyone and only filmed the females for my own purposes,” [said Lambert]. “I just liked using the video function on my phone.”
May 13, 2020
"When nearly every person goes about her day with a hand-held device capable of taking hundreds of photographs and videos and every public place is equipped with a wide variety of surveillance equipment, it is simply not reasonable to expect that our fully clothed images will remain totally private."
Wrote Judge James Curwood Witt Jr. of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee in Knoxville, quoted in "Trailing Women With a Camera Was Legal, Appeals Court Rules/David Eric Lambert, 40, lurked in stores and followed women around, pointing his phone at their breasts and buttocks, but because he was in public, he committed no crime, an appeals court concluded" (NYT).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
48 comments:
When somebody beats the crap out of him, that should be legal too.
That's why my parents confiscated my "x-ray glasses" when I was a kid.
If it is not a crime yet, it needs to be criminalized. This sociopath must be removed from society.
Creepy doesn't always equal illegal.
only filmed the females for my own purposes
Which I think it's safe to assume are onanistic. The whole "the females" locution seems simultaneously... clinical and creepy, like a researcher talking about research subjects. I'd certainly want law enforcement to keep an eye on this character since he's definitely exhibiting subclinical sex predator behavior.
I do wonder about all these women (and men I guess) who willingly regularly put their images up on Instagram and Facebook or whereever and imagine that nobody would use these images for there own... "purposes".
If he "lurked and followed" without a camera is it a crime? If he filmed a child while in public is it a crime?
Is this judge an idiot?
I would argue that my presence at Wal*Mart and the gas station indicates consent. Knowing I will be filmed, I agree to the terms by frequenting the business. Even voting for the city manager who authorizes the traffic cam indicates a kind of consent. This stalker was not granted consent.
Yes, much unmasking and upskirting was going on under Obama.
Although, unlike other privacy rights, rites, and concerns, we retain our voices to protest and our arms to defend our dignity.
We try so hard to be civilized that we forget that there are times when decency requires that we might need to take action in an uncivilized way. People who insist upon being uncivilized in public, to the consternation of others, should not be surprised to see it reciprocated in private, to their personal consternation. Obviously this guy is a creep who is stalking.
he's definitely exhibiting subclinical sex predator behavior
Unless he progresses to abortion or rape... rape-rape, he has a trans-social orientation. A bright lateral band in the transgender spectrum. #NoJudgment #NoLabels
Number 1,685 why conservatives do not believe in small government.
Let's take a perfectly legal activity and make it a crime. What's next arresting women for checking out a guy's ass or arrest a man for ogling a woman's bust?
We need to prosecute all the women who masterbated to Fifty Shades of Grey for rape. They didn't get consent!
Ok Karen.
Unless this creep's subjects have signed a model release, their images belong to them. Seems to me he can be sued under civil law for copyright violation. If not, why not?...
Unless this creep's subjects have signed a model release, their images belong to them. Seems to me he can be sued under civil law for copyright violation. If not, why not?...
The correct decision, like it or not.
Is Eric related to Ed Gein?
When nearly every person goes about her day with a hand-held device ...
What is it with this tedious, glaring and completely unnecessary gendering of sentences?
"Every person" is not a her.
Instead, with the sloppy writing eliminated: When nearly everyone goes about their day ...
[/pedant]
The judge is technically right--when you go out in public, you give other people permission to photograph you. That's why photographers of crowds or public events don't have to get permission from all the people in their photos in order to publish. That's not a close call.
But isn't there something more going on here? By following them around and zooming in on particular body parts, can't this also be thought of as harassment? Peeping Tom'ism? Which is illegal.
"I just liked using the video function on my phone."
Un-huh.
The DA said, "If you’re taking a picture of someone’s intimate parts, that’s not something that society is willing to accept"
Correction. The defendant was NOT taking pictures of anyone's intimate parts. What he filmed was the clothing that shielded from view those intimate parts.
That's a big difference.
Clearly the right decision. You can always where a burka.
bbear said...
Unless this creep's subjects have signed a model release, their images belong to them. Seems to me he can be sued under civil law for copyright violation. If not, why not?...
Every person gives the world permission to photograph them when they go out in public. Not sure what right you are talking about when you bring up copyright, but it's definitely not copyright.
I like when women wear yoga pants, which basically is just like being naked with painted-on pants. Then they say they only do it becuase it's comfortable. It's like if men walked around wearing only a condom, "because it's comfortable". I'm sure yoga pants are comfortable, but so are baggy pants or a Mumu dress, but then nobody would be staring at your ass. They want you to stare at their ass, but expect you to believe they don't as they display it like a burger in a Carl's Junior ad.
This reminds me of that woman who was creeping around at the 2011 Capitol protest in Madison and video recording people against their will, for her own purposes.
What could you do if someone just follows you around watching you? They never interfere with you, just watch you from a distance. Is anything illegal about that? It seems like anything you could do to stop them would be illegal though.
Naked Beneath My Clothes
-Rita Rudner
But was he social distancing?
That's called creepy. I don't care what era we live in. If I see a guy doing that, I'll punch him in the face.
Photo software could be made to black-bar clothed breasts and butts.
To all here who have said something along the lines of "it may not be illegal, but it's icky, and we need to stop him . . .":
I'll bet that, if I look, I can find something "icky" to me about how you live your life. Do you grant me the power to stop you from doing those totally legal things?
Think carefully before answering. I'll have all of the fat guys wearing tight shorts in jail right away. Yuck. Boiling broccoli? Into the camps with you. Ewww.
Wasn't law made on this subject involving Mrs Onassis many decades ago?
What Mr. Forward said. Where are the husbands, boyfriends, fathers and sons of these women? Why hasn't any beaten the hell out of this creep yet? No jury would convict you of assault given these facts.
"I just liked using the video function on my phone."
"I just liked using my fists, elbows, knees, and feet on the photographer."
I think the keyword is "trailing." If you can grab a shot without being noticed because you're standing there staring at your phone like everybody else, fine. If you're actively altering your position in relationship to another person's movements, that's creepy and should get your ass chased out of the store, camera or no camera.
Being in public does not entitle you to the expectation that you won't be seen. But it does not grant others the right to accost you.
Unless this creep's subjects have signed a model release, their images belong to them. Seems to me he can be sued under civil law for copyright violation. If not, why not?...
Actually, under copyright law, the photographer owns the copyright in the photos, not the model (unless they have come to a contractual agreement that provides otherwise). The model might have some right of publicity claim, assuming that the jurisdiction provides for such a right (some states have laws on the books, some address it through common law, and some do not recognize such a claim), but here it does not seem like the photographer was using the photographs for promotional or monetary gain, so likely this would not apply. Right of privacy would also not be implicated, as the subjects were out in public.
Heck, many states have yet to pass laws banning "upskirt" photos - makes this guy look relatively tame.
It seems the specificity, particularity and especially the persistence would a good argument against legality - bordering on harassment. Maybe not a convincing argument, but a reasonable one. It is not a fixed camera pointing in a direction resulting in videos of all people passing in, through and out of the field of view. Or even a remotely controlled camera tracking a particular person for a specific necessary purpose (maybe suspected shoplifting / trespassing).
I see tim maguire makes a similar point.
I'm not sure about the "no crime", but I do agree with the courts decision that filming someone in public shouldn't be illegal. If it were, then what makes having a security camera legal? And lets recognize that TSA goes further with their x-ray machines that supposedly deletes the image yet somehow they remain. However, stalking is still a problem. The remedy is usually to first get a restraining order and then the argument is less criminal than civil.
In short, refer to Yancey Ward:
The correct decision, like it or not.
Respond in kind and make everyone aware of the pervert. They probably won't like the attention either and be far less capable of coping with it.
A person has complete control over which parts of their body can be viewed (and filmed) when they go out in public. Don't like someone filming your butt when you are wearing super tight yoga pants? Don't wear super tight yoga pants. No one can take pictures of your "intimate parts" if those parts are not exposed to public view.
“Unless this creep's subjects have signed a model release, their images belong to them. Seems to me he can be sued under civil law for copyright violation. If not, why not?”
Because when you are out in public you have no expectation of privacy.
Several years ago I received a frantic call from the wife of one of my employees who'd been arrested for the very same behavior. He'd been observed following teenaged girls around a mall taking similar pictures as described in the article. A search by police of his home computer revealed a collection of similar photos in the several of thousands. I visited him in jail and advised him to keep quiet and not speak to the police at all unless and until he had a lawyer to advise him. He didn't take my advice and not only talked to the police, he signed a confession to the most lurid of charges unrelated to the images he recorded. He received 30 years, is considered a sexual offender though he never committed a sexual offense, his wife divorced him, and he'll never see his children again. For my part in giving him the simple advice to retain his constitutional rights, I had a bulls-eye on my back for six months from the DA who suspected I must be part of a pedophile ring that my former employee must have also belonged. This and the Flynn case are sad reminders of what can happen to largely innocent people when pursued by aggressive, powerful prosecutors tethered to nothing more than their ambition.
Isn't this somehow a copyright issue? Shouldn't this creep have to get permission from the woman being photographed like some sort of model's release?
“I just liked using the video function on my phone.”
This guy would clearly have gotten a job with Hillary's campaign.
Definitely inappropriate behavior, but I don't think it should be illegal. My daughter works in retail at a "customer service" counter for a large retailer. A few months ago, a customer was unhappy about something, and after not getting what she wanted, took out her phone and took a picture of my daughter and her co-worker. This upset my daughter, and I told her that it was my understanding that one couldn't be photographed without consent, even in a public area. (I assume that if the woman had posted the picture on social media, we could request that it be taken down.)
Now, I'm not so sure...
Don’t most municipalities have loitering statues on the books?
Kind of reminds me of the stories I've heard (urban legend?) of pervy guys who would affix tiny mirrors to the tops of their shoes and stand closely to young women on subway cars so they could catch reflections of undies and stocking tops. Obviously this was from a time when skirts/dresses and stockings were the standard for women. Nowadays that might earn the guy a nasty elbow in the ribs for pulling that.
Ha, KellyM! My sisters were instructed (by the nuns at school) to NOT buy patent leather shoes!
He ended up in court so something bad did happen to him. I can easily imagine something even worse happening to him. It seems to be a high risk perversion with minimal rewards....Maybe someone told him "Take a picture. It will last longer" and he heeded that advice....Well, at least he didn't masturbate in front of female comedians. He can still find a job.
I dunno, this sounds an awful lot like PORAT v. LINCOLN TOWERS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.
From the opinion:
To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.
Plaintiff's Complaint satisfies neither element of this standard. He effectively disclaims any communicative property of his photography as well as any intended audience by describing himself as a "photo hobbyist,"
Post a Comment