So, is it okay for a predator to take candids of children and/or their body parts (feet, rear ends, etc.) out in public for their own sexual gratification? It’s perfectly legal, right, but is it not disgusting? No one deserves to be taken advantage of for secretly obtained material to be passed around on the internet by strangers who want to get sexually aroused by them. Kids can’t make the decision to be in sexual photographs, obviously. But neither can an adult who doesn’t know it’s going on because there is no opportunity to make that decision. It’s taking advantage of the unknowing and unsuspecting, regardless. I would have no problem if someone with a camera went up to someone (an adult) and asked for a photo and told them exactly what it was for.
FYI, it's not "perfectly legal" to take pictures of kids and post them to fetish sites. That is in fact illegal, and rightly so. We're talking about adults here, not kids. If you want to talk about kids, please go somewhere else.
You're completely missing the point. Celebrities are a bad comparison because they choose that life knowingly. Willingly. The technicalities of what is legal and what isn't doesn't stop someone from having to make a choice: am I going to take advantage? Do I care? The law being on your side doesn't free you from that crossroad.
It's not a bad comparison at all. And many celebrities object to the paparazzi. Not long ago Jeff posted a clip of some celebrity (I can't remember his name) who while walking with his head down, didn't see a sign and crashed into it. You can't for a minute tell me that celebrities accept the paparazzi willingly.
If somebody took a picture of my sister at her wedding and put it on a fetish site, I wouldn't be a hypocrite for being furious at a fellow fetishist. I wouldn't be "uptight" because the law protects so and so and it's just me having "sour grapes because I'm wrong". My fury would be over someone not giving a crap that my sister doesn't appreciate or choose that for herself. That it just had to be because her wedding day was worth being cheapened in the name of lust. Would that make me wrong or does that simply mean that I choose to be considerate?
LOL, we're really getting in tall weeds now. Weddings are private events. Like gatherings. And as such those who attend agree to abide by certain rules. Many weddings I've attended stipulate no flash photography. The organizers can stipulate no photography whatsoever if they're worried about the scenario you suggest. I've personally never heard of such a thing, myself.
I'm not sure if you know or not, but paparazzi are often considered to be bottom feeding scumbags.
By like, the vast majority of people.
Yes, that's true. But I would say that's a case of a few bad apples spoiling the whole bunch. Some of them wait outside the homes of celebrities, or outside their movie sets, and they get in the faces of these celebrities at the first opportunity. Some take long range telescopic photos in their windows. What I'm defending is somebody casually and unobtrusively taking pictures of women's feet in public places and posting them to fetish web sites. And if people think that makes us bottom feeding scumbags, I'm sure we'll find some way to live with that.
I don't know about anyone else, but DontAskJusTckle's neener neener approach reminds me of a Lethal Weapon villain basking cheesily in diplomatic immunity.
LOL. Except that guy was playing his diplomatic immunity card to
legitimate authorities. He was dealing with REAL policemen, not the Moral Majority. If the forum admins object to my picture, they'll get no argument from me. No immunity here, pal.
If it's not creepy or shameful, why does it have to be hidden? Why isn't the person right out in the open, pointing their camera at the woman's feet and snapping away?
I can think of several reasons. First and foremost it shows courtesy to the woman being photographed to exercise discretion rather than to embarrass her with a public display. It's like the difference between silent approval of a woman's features as opposed to whistles and catcalls. This way she can go about her business or continue her conversation without a rude interruption.
Secondly, as a photographer in a public venue I'm under no obligation to announce my presence. I'm minding my own business, and if I choose to operate discreetly, that's in no way indicative of shame or guilt. It's simply taking the path of least resistance.
I do modeling every now and then, and the release contract always and explicitly says that the photos, even if they are nudes, underwear or stuff like that, cannot be posted on sexually oriented sites. And there is a reason for that!
Yes, because a model's photos are his trade. They are produced as intellectual property with copyright protection. Otherwise, they become worthless.
So if you can't even do it with model photos where the people are well aware the photos are being taken, you sure as hell shouldn't do it with photos when people aren't even aware they are being taken pictures of!
WTF? How can you even compare the two? With candid photos, there's no contract, no copyright, and nothing whatsoever illegal about it.
Face it, Rhiannon. With all your fascist preaching of your moral imperatives, you can't put a dent into this issue. Taking candid pictures is perfectly okay. And in my opinion, it's good to share one's candid photos with the community. In fact, at wikifeet.org which primarily focuses on celebrity feet, there is a section for non-celebrity candid feet shots, which I heartily recommend.
