Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004

[Andy K]

...and if there happens to be a topless woman in the background on the beach? As for your child in the tub, we have already had cases in Britain of parents confronted by Police Vice Squad officers knocking on their doors because some politically correct arsehole at the lab objected to junior's winkie appearing in a photo.

This law is a gift to interfering busybodies.

[bmac]

...and if there happens to be a topless woman in the background on the beach? As for your child in the tub, we have already had cases in Britain of parents confronted by Police Vice Squad officers knocking on their doors because some politically correct arsehole at the lab objected to junior's winkie appearing in a photo.

This law is a gift to interfering busybodies.

Thank god for digital No lab arseholes here...

[Aggie]

So how do proud parents get permission from their newborn babe to get a shot of him/her in the tub? It effectively outlaws ALL beach/holiday photography because there might be someone in the background with 'private parts' on show, it outlaws photographing your own kids while playing in a pool or with the hose in the garden... I have absolutely no wish to photograph anyone's 'private parts', but I do wish to be able to photograph without some slackjaw pointing an accusatory finger at me as a possible pervert.

This act is politically correct madness with serious repercussions for all US photographers. Even totalitarian Russia had no law like this.

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.

Read the bill very carefully. Read where it says. "REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY." A beach as far as I know it is a public place. If a person is in a public place and it is legal for them to be topless, does it not follow that they are just as likely to be photographed like any person on the streets may? This bill is more about people taking unauthorized pictures of people in various unclothed states. Those states being in a private place, IE bathrooms, home, fenced backyard. How many papparazzi hang out in trees to try and get photos of celebrities in just such non attire?

As for the kids in the bathtub one, are you taking pictures of their private parts? I took pictures of my kids undressed, but private parts hidden from view. I also at the time was their legal guardian able to give said conscent of that photo being taken.

As for Russia, they had much stricter laws. I can give you the email address of my sister in law who along with her parents escaped from the old Soviet Union back in the early 70's. Ask her what freedoms her family was allowed.

[Magic Rat]

Swimsuits are not considered undergarments.

True, but if your children are at a water park and someone is surreptitiously making closeup video of their groins you have a reasonable expectation that these images would not be made. I have seen this specific incident in the news here in SoCal and should expect that persons involved with this type of behavior be prosecuted. Which is what I understand the following to state.

`(3) the term `under circumstances violating the privacy of that individual' means under circumstances in which the individual exhibits an expectation that the improper image would not be made, in a situation in which a reasonable person would be justified in that expectation.'.

This could however have far reaching implications in the tabloid industry. Which I'm sure most celebrities would welcome.

[anyte]

True, but if your children are at a water park and someone is surreptitiously making closeup video of their groins you have a reasonable expectation that these images would not be made. I have seen this specific incident in the news here in SoCal and should expect that persons involved with this type of behavior be prosecuted. Which is what I understand the following to state.

`(3) the term `under circumstances violating the privacy of that individual' means under circumstances in which the individual exhibits an expectation that the improper image would not be made, in a situation in which a reasonable person would be justified in that expectation.'.

This could however have far reaching implications in the tabloid industry. Which I'm sure most celebrities would welcome.

Well I should hope no one here is upset by the bill because it would put a damper on them shooting the groin area of strange children at the beach or water parks.

[Andy K]

As for the kids in the bathtub one, are you taking pictures of their private parts? I took pictures of my kids undressed, but private parts hidden from view. I also at the time was their legal guardian able to give said conscent of that photo being taken.

No I am not. But it is EXACTLY that kind of sly insinuation that this law will encourage. My parents have photographs of me aged two weeks being bathed, genitalia on view. Are you saying my parents, and millions like them were and are deviants Aggie?

Keep your puritanical laws. What's next? Modesty blinkers for men in case they perchance to glance upon an undraped female ankle? Well remove my eyes with a fork! :rolleyes:

[juan]

It would appear from the link that the bill has not yet passed. It appears to be still in the House. If you're worried about it, write your Congressman. Raise hell somewhere it will do some good.
juan

[Magic Rat]

If you're worried about it, write your Congressman. Raise hell somewhere it will do some good.
juan

Solid advice.

[blansky]

Personally I think this is an infringement on "body function" artists, those people who express their art by taking pictures of people using their bodies in the ways they were intended.

I welcome their "art" on the internet the same way I welcome the art of so many other cutting edge artists.

Aggie if you don't want people seeing you in the bathroom and bedroom then you should shut down your porn site and refund people's money. I paid good money to see Aggie website with her strutting naked throughout the house doing her daily activities and I for one would hate to see her close it down.

But hey that's just me


Michael McBlane

[Aggie]

No I am not. But it is EXACTLY that kind of sly insinuation that this law will encourage. My parents have photographs of me aged two weeks being bathed, genitalia on view. Are you saying my parents, and millions like them were and are deviants Aggie?

Keep your puritanical laws. What's next? Modesty blinkers for men in case they perchance to glance upon an undraped female ankle? Well remove my eyes with a fork! :rolleyes:

It is just this kind of jumping to conclusions that gets people upset. I did not call you a deviant. As for your parents, I did not say a word about them. It was a rhetorical question which could also be said to say you are not one of them. Seems I was the one who posted a nude shot of a cowboy out in a pear orchard back a year ago. I also said that parents are the GUARDIANS and as such are the ones giving permission. The hospital where both my kids were born would be at fault according to your theory. Both of them had their pcitures taken fully exposed. They were also each less than 24 hours old. As for police storming homes to take pictures that parents have taken of their children, there will always be some officious person no matter what law is on the books that will over step common sense. Example was the woman in Texas almost 2 years ago that we discussed here on apug who was jailed and her children taken away for having pictures of her breast feeding and also of them in the bathtub. That was sans said bill.

What would be better served would be rallying against the stupidity of officials going beyond normal in their execution of their jobs. The bill in question is good. It far out weighs the few probable times some one might take it too far. There are far more instances of pediphiles, papparazi, and the like that this is aimed at, praying on children and even adults. Those are the ones I care about.

LOL, puritanical? Well maybe I should refund Blansky's money.