Gothamist: Watch Out For Upskirters

Norbert Hell

Fri, 12 May 2006 19:58:43 -0500

A guy is innocently persuing his hobby when he is nabbed for offences against the person.What offence? Hes only taking pics up wimmins skirts, hes not killing anyone.Give this guy a break.The cops should buy him a digital camcorder.Vive L' Upskirters!

rolandog

Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:40:46 -0500

LOL. Nice article. I sent a link to a friend to show him that taking upskirt shots in front of police officers is bad.

Lisa Claeys

Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:27:55 -0500

I understand that "upskirting" pics are illegal to take. Thats fine. But if you are an attractive female out in public wearing a short skirt, men are going to notice you. Isn't that why you wear that short skirt? Surely a pair of baggy sweats would be more comfortable? BTW I can take a pic of you if you are in public! I'm happy with a nice ass shot of you in that short skirt. I dont need the upskirt thing. The female form is beautiful. I dont need to see you nude to think you are attractive. Lots of women actually look sexier with their clothes on! lol

Erica

Tue, 08 Jun 2004 13:10:48 -0500

Just noticed this today...I guess I should be concerned, my teenage daughter goes to this mall quite often. I don't think she was there that day. Hopefully she isn't in anyone's camera.

joshkar24

Thu, 27 May 2004 06:59:55 -0500

I'm not sure I understand why anyone's worried about being "up-skirted" when its very unlikly that their identity could be established from such photos. In the event that it was recognized it would probably be only by themselves or an intimate other! What worries me is having my pictures taken in a locker room in by some creep with a cell phone while i'm in the buff - maybee a device could be installed in all phones alowing such features to be disabled in public places by a special wireless device

wolfey

Wed, 26 May 2004 15:45:10 -0500

Brian Van's just wrong on several points, especially Diane Arbus being one of the few and the commercial use of photos taken in public places. The thing that gets this guy in trouble is the reaching under part, not what Lth does.

Lth

Wed, 26 May 2004 11:11:19 -0500

well, i'm in trouble: http://www.fotolog.net/lauratitian/?photo_id=7773323

sam

Wed, 26 May 2004 09:45:05 -0500

bring back the kilt!

Donald

Wed, 26 May 2004 06:27:30 -0500

A cautionary tale for the severely unemployed. Save me! Well, I'm gay, so ...

gotopinion

Wed, 26 May 2004 03:43:22 -0500

It's just a fact that the human body is beautiful, interesting and artistic. But when you are talking about "upskirting", it's not about capturing beauty - it's about taking liberties without asking. It's invading privacy. If you can't peep into someone's windows of their home, why in the world would you think you could peep up their skirt - or down their pants - or anywhere else? Hello...

Jason

Wed, 26 May 2004 01:47:50 -0500

It's both funny and disturbing. It's always fun to see women in tight or frilly skirts and hot pants- and to photograph them. On the other hand some women clearly do not appreciate such behavior or exposure for obvious reasons. If it wasn't considered a crime punishable by a trip to the county jail this bizaree hobby would be a lot more popular.

Automatt

Tue, 25 May 2004 19:30:04 -0500

It seems to be quite the thing to point out how dumb this guy is, etc for using the flash. Yes in this case it did cause him to get caught, which isn't the smartest thing. However if you don't use a flash when shooting in indoor, shadowed, candid photographs of any kind, the photos won't come out. So the original poster here seems to think that it would be smarter to engage in risky, possibly illegal activity like this and then have the photos not come out. Now THAT would be really dumb.

sam

Tue, 25 May 2004 18:11:29 -0500

I see nothing wrong with it. more power to him and all the upskirters out there. keep up the good work.

Harry Johnson

Tue, 25 May 2004 17:57:28 -0500

sounds like mr. lyons needs to look into purchasing a smaller and more inconspicous digital camera.

tien

Tue, 25 May 2004 15:12:29 -0500

ha! innocent until proven guilty! that's funny. lucky for him, he took that picture in front of two undercover cops.

jordan

Tue, 25 May 2004 15:00:36 -0500

found this related incident on a seattle blog: http://www.demondoyle.squarespace.com/display/ShowJournalEntry?moduleId=7229&entryId=11324

Adam

Tue, 25 May 2004 14:32:44 -0500

Here's a nice link for those of you who want to know what your legal rights are as a photographer: Legal Handbook for Photographers. It was written by Burt P. Krages, a Portland, Ore., attorney specializing in literary and visual arts law. There's even a PDF that you can DL and print out for reference in the field or streets.

scott's friend

Tue, 25 May 2004 13:59:36 -0500

HOW CAN YOU GUYS BE SO MEAN? SCOTT'S A GREAT GUY AND HE WOULD NEVER DO ANYTHING TO HURT A SOUL! HE'S A GENTLE GIANT, HE COACHES LITTLE LEAGUE, HE GIVES FREE ICE CREAM TO KIDS, HE TUTORS THE UNDERPRIVILEDGED, HE'S A DEVOTED SON, BOYFRIEND, AND FRIEND. AND HE'D NEVER TURN HIS BACK ON ANYONE IN NEED! HAVE YOU EVER HEARD THE PHRASE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?!!?! HE HASN'T BEEN CONVICTED OF ANYTHING AND HE'LL BE CLEARED OF THESE BASELESS CHARGES, I'M SURE

emjaybee

Tue, 25 May 2004 13:14:39 -0500

Is it just me or does that guy look like John Cusak's fatter, creepier, balder brother? I wish they'd stick a camera down his shorts, snap a picture, and then post it on the internet for mocking. I mean, gah, what a creep.

Hamish

Tue, 25 May 2004 13:02:19 -0500

When I was in Japan I was told that that cute little "shutter release" noise that camera phones make is fixed on J-Phones so it can't be turned off - due to the amount of upskirts and such being done. I believe, though I don't have one, that the noise can be turned off in the UK/US.

Brian Van

Tue, 25 May 2004 12:57:58 -0500

Traditionally, you are not required to take anyone's picture in a public place from any angle (well, upskirt photos were never allowed for other reasons), and you've even been able to sell such photos commercially. I mean, if the photographer had to ask permission, would we have that famous black-and-white picture of the sailor spontaneously kissing the woman? People are too sensitive about this stuff. I personally don't have time to argue with anyone, so usually when I take pictures of the city I wait for everyone to get out of the frame. My pictures are typically devoid of any real human presence. It results in a cold world depicted in my pictures, but I simply don't have the patience to waste a good picture moment because someone can't stand to have their photo taken. I hate getting those dirty looks. The buildings seem to be much more cooperative. I think most photographers would rather take pictures of animals, plants, landscapes, and architecture - anything but people. Of course, if you're not into any of that, Diane Arbus is one of the few famous art photographers that actually primarily sought pictures of people. Her estate has published more of her work recently, so it's a good time to take a look.