"You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person," Douglas said.

The law has been focused to protect the privacy of innocent, unwitting, or unwilling subjects.

Markus Richter wrote:
I'd sure like to see the state statute that details this. Taking photos of people in public places is not against any laws I know of in any state. Commercial use of such photos is another story. How and who determines what constitutes "sexual gratification?" Is a shot of a clothed woman from behind considered sexual to someone with a butt fetish? Are shots of men or women in bathing suits automatically considered sexual?

This is what I have found in dpreview...

more:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readf … d=15405585

So would we assume that if it were your wife/husband or daughter/son whose privates were being focused on or anything else that was deemed inappropriate, then it would be okay by you? Because you understand the artistic nature of photography and the photographer's mind?

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
I have actually been out taking photos in public before. I do not focus on people in general, but on an area. I have been questioned and have had to show what was on my camera before. Just so you know. There are people who do not want to be in photos of any kind for whatever reason. I am not angry, but understanding.

No, I've never been questioned and never had to show what was on my camera before, because no one cares over here. Except you use the images for commercial things, than you have to ask the person and make a contract.

Markus Richter wrote:
Well, well......you are a very strange nation!!

Yea, strange and proud however you weren’t saying that on May 9th, 1945 when we kicked the living sauerkraut out of your butts

Of course we have some overzealous laws, however it's not illegal to wash our cars on Sundays!

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
If this guy got arrested and had "inappropriate" pictures of women and children ... I guarantee those shots weren't going on Christmas cards.

Please define "inappropriate" Eric. Maybe I can better understand. I typed "inappropriate" into my translator and the result isn't bad. Maybe you as Americans define "inappropriate" different to us Europeans? Just for understanding. ;-)

thanks Eric.

C R Photography wrote:

Yea, strange and proud however you weren’t saying that on May 9th, 1945 when we kicked the living sauerkraut out of your butts

Thank you very much for your great brainy answer! I appreciate it!
Now I understand

Markus Richter wrote:
Please define "inappropriate" Eric. Maybe I can better understand. I typed "inappropriate" into my translator and the result isn't bad. Maybe you as Americans define "inappropriate" different to us Europeans? Just for understanding. ;-)

thanks Eric.

Well, Markus..... I would say that inappropriate can be defined differently depending on the context that it is used in.

Attire inappropriate for school means someone is wearing a mini skirt, saggy jeans or tube top.


Inappropriate photographs of women and children aren't focusing on their faces....and focusing on women and children's body parts in never really a good thing if they don;t know that the photo is being taken.

C R Photography wrote:
Of course we have some overzealous laws, however it's not illegal to wash our cars on Sundays!

To wash a car on sundays is "inappropriate?" where?

I have much better things to do on sundays than to wash my cars, but it is not illegal here. Maybe in France or Switzerland

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
Attire inappropriate for school means someone is wearing a mini skirt, saggy jeans or tube top.


Inappropriate photographs of women and children aren't focusing on their faces....and focusing on women and children's body parts in never really a good thing if they don;t know that the photo is being taken.

Ahhh I see!! Thank you for that nice answer. It was a misunderstanding between our different languages.

Markus Richter wrote:

Ahhh I see!! Thank you for that nice answer. It was a misunderstanding between our different languages.

Not a problem.

C R Photography wrote:
Yea, strange and proud however you weren’t saying that on May 9th, 1945 when we kicked the living sauerkraut out of your butts

The man taking the pictures will have his day in court. If he broke the law then that's where it will ultimately be determined. States trying to protect people from surreptitious up-the-skirt picture or video isn't a bad thing. Some people are tired of that kind of crap. If he was charged then there is most likely much more to the story.

Markus Richter wrote:

To wash a car on sundays is "inappropriate?" where?

I have much better things to do on sundays than to wash my cars, but it is not illegal here. Maybe in France or Switzerland

http://www.expatica.com/source/forum_th … _id=159706

I guess you didn't know or you're a total rebel...

C R Photography wrote:

http://www.expatica.com/source/forum_th … _id=159706

I guess you didn't know or you're a total rebel...

haha, where do you found this? I laughed my brain out. Must be a relic from the past.
No, you can wash your car here on sundays in the year 2005

Markus Richter wrote:
Please define "inappropriate" Eric. Maybe I can better understand. I typed "inappropriate" into my translator and the result isn't bad. Maybe you as Americans define "inappropriate" different to us Europeans? Just for understanding. ;-)

thanks Eric.

I am not sure what was actually being photographed. But it said the photos were of a sexual nature.

So, for example, if he was shooting up the skirts of women and little girls to get get some panty-shots ... I think that would be quite inappropriate.

I understand that things may be more lenient in Germany, but I guarantee that no German authorities would let a guy walk around Octboerfest sticking his camera up women's skirts either.

Was that was this guy did? I dunno. I'm just using that as an example of what the "inappropriate" photos of a "sexual nature" might be.

Markus Richter wrote:
I'd sure like to see the state statute that details this.

§ 21.15.  IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL
RECORDING.  (a)  In this section, "promote" has the meaning
assigned by Section 43.21.
    (b)  A person commits an offense if the person:                               
        (1)  photographs or by videotape or other electronic
means visually records another:
            (A)  without the other person's consent;  and                               
            (B)  with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person;  or
        (2)  knowing the character and content of the
photograph or recording, promotes a photograph or visual recording
described by Subdivision (1).
    (c)  An offense under this section is a state jail felony.                     
    (d)  If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor
may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.

Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 458, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001. 
Amended by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 500, § 1, eff. Sept. 1,
2003.

Mary wrote:
I love the arm chair quarterbacking that goes on here.  I especially love it from people not even citizens of the USA...they love to arm chair quarterback here as if there isn't enough wrong in their own countries.

Do you all have any idea what this guy was really doing?  Dawn Elizabeth had it right...you can't take your phone camera and shoot up womens dresses (something there have been many arrests for)  You can't take your camera and  zoom in on body parts and just start shooting....come one!!!  We need the freedom to be outside and live our lives without perverts shooting our body parts so he can post them on his internet pay site....

I don't think there's a rule that non-US citizens cannot comment on US developments. If there is one, I'm sure you would support the reverse, which will quickly end the criticism of France, the rest of old Europe and America's meddling in virtually every nook and cranny of this world.

Now that I've got that out of the way, as a non-US citizen who nevertheless pays taxes in this country (taxation without representation), I really would like to know what this guy is charged with.

If he tried to shoot upskirts or otherwise invade on his victims' privacy, the police were right to arrest him (if his state has a law in place banning that, which I hope it does). But if he were merely zooming in on breasts or butts on a public street, I don't see what they could charge him with.

It's amazing to me that for all the attention this story has gotten on various forums, the facts are still not known.

Now, to the Europeans in Europe who have commented here. I do think your comments are premature. We don't know what happened exactly. As a father of a little girl, I rather have the cops watching for weirdos than taking an attitude that the danger of sexual predators is overblown.

Eric Muss-Barnes wrote:
1.) So, for example, if he was shooting up the skirts of women and little girls to get get some panty-shots ... I think that would be quite inappropriate.

2.) I understand that things may be more lenient in Germany, but I guarantee that no German authorities would let a guy walk around Octboerfest sticking his camera up women's skirts either.

to 1.) I agree totally.

to 2.) I'm sure this guy would be beaten by this woman faster than the German Police could arrest him. (Women do that here)

Mary wrote:
...You can't take your camera and  zoom in on body parts and just start shooting....come one!!!  We need the freedom to be outside and live our lives without perverts shooting our body parts so he can post them on his internet pay site....

LOL... When I do "street" I take pictures of the whole person and save the interesting body parts thingys for the post- crop. The coppers can look at my FILM as soon as they get the search warrant.

Studio36

Markus Richter wrote:
Food for Thought ...

Police Say Photos Were Of Sexual Nature

POSTED: 5:17 pm CDT October 11, 2005
UPDATED: 9:42 am CDT October 12, 2005

SOUTHLAKE, Texas -- Thousands of people milled through the Southlake Town Square Sunday night during the community's Octoberfest celebration. One man, however, was arrested during festivities after police said he used a digital camera to take inappropriate photographs of women and children.

Louis Vogel, 60, of North Richland Hills, was arrested by Southlake Police after officers observed him for about an hour snapping pictures. Police said the photos were of a "sexual nature."

"He had a camera with him. It was obvious he was taking photographs," Southlake Police Lt. Ashleigh Douglas said. "But during their investigation, (investigators) determined the photographs were deemed inappropriate."

Photography in a public place is not illegal. Southlake police, however, said the nature of the pictures Vogel took violated state law.

"You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person," Douglas said.

Investigators said they found more than 12 photographs that depicted specific parts of women's and children's bodies on Vogel's camera.

Vogel could face up to two years in jail if convicted of violating state law. He has bonded out of jail, but has not responded to repeated attempts to contact him.
Link: http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5086442/detail.html




Well, well......you are a very strange nation!!

It reminds me back in time when it was forbidden to make pictures in the Soviet-Union....is this the way the US go in the future? I think not.

I took images from nude glamour-models in New York 2003. Maybe the police arrest me when I come back to the US again? Better and safer to stay away and make my pictures in Canada in future?

The US have the largest porn industry in the world. No other country produces more porn and nowhere are more pornsites hosted than in the USA.
But you get arrested when taking public images in Texas, USA!

Strange....

And your point is?  How many times do we have to listen to this from people outside of the country.  The canadian police have never done anything silly?  Maybe he was doing something inappropriate... wouldn't it help if you had a tad bit more info before you comence with bashing americans again... and again... etc.

DawnElizabeth Moderator wrote:
I have been questioned and have had to show what was on my camera before.  I am not angry, but understanding.

You should be angry,,that is an invasion or your privacy. Where is it that we live??

If someone came up to me and demanded to see what was on my camera,,If they were an official, they better have a warrant.
And if they are a citizen, they better have thier running shoes on because I'm gonna smack em with my man purse,,I mean my camera bag.

It's nobodys business what someone is taking a picture of in public,,thats our right in this country, how you use it is another story. I do agree that if they are caught with it up some girls skirt, that is wrong.

Good Lord,,,I was taking a picture of a 12 yr old (legit) frontal from the knees to the neck for a surf wear and jewelry ad.
Nothing but board shorts, boobies and a necklace,,,,I could be arrested?,,How absurd! maybe I will shoot full length from now on and just crop later,,just to stay on the safe side you know. Lol

If you dont want to be photographed,,,stay inside.

I agree,,If there is what seems to be some creepy crawler lurking around, it is cause for closer scrutiny. And who's to make the judgement whether they are acually a creep?????????

Look at the cameras they have up at every traffic intersection watching us scratch our asses and pick our nose,,,All in the name of traffic safety of course.

I wonder if the person behind those remotes are keeping thier eyes where they should be.

Christ,,The news is in everbodys face whether the person likes it or not.

Can we talk about TFP Fairness and Escorts when we are done with this thread?

It's been such a long time!  Lol

Good morning!

Weldphoto wrote:
A comment on several remarks made here about non-US citizens commenting on our laws.

They have every right to comment on our law, customs and anything else they want. We in America are very free with our comments on the laws and actions of other contries.

Part of the glorious freedom that is such a core part of our country is the freedom of expression. Why would we, who prize this freedom, deny it to others?

We don't need to be defensive about our country. It's strong enough to withstand a few comments on some of our more questionable laws. Lets not lose our ability to disagree nor our ability to enjoy an exchange of thoughtful ideas.

And lets, please, lighten up!

did I say people from other countries cant comment on the USA?  no, please read more carefully. 

It bugs me that people comment on how bad America is...constantly! Get off the net, open your door and look where you live...Everywhere there are problems but the world seems to focus on the USA while they depend on us for everything.  We are the first country to come bail people out when they are in trouble, we are the one that always sends money...we are like the parent everyone hates but can't live without.  Germany???? come on??!!!  shall we take a history lesson??  well, I have Buhlmans in my family, pretty German LOL!   they escaped Germany and came to America....not to Russia, not to Mexico but America, and they are still here after all these years, never to go back.