[Closed] Is this voyeurism?

I think your gut reaction is correct. It is without consent and an invasion of privacy at the very least.

The images are relatively harmless in themselves but there is a consistent pattern of behaviour being demonstrated.

Do you regard that behaviour as problematic; does it make them a voyeur?

What does this mean?

Photographers taking photographs of women as sexual objects? Surely not.

subject matter of interest

Yeah, that's what it is. He's not fapping himself senseless over the photos at all. No siree.

(which is entirely legal)

The images are relatively harmless in themselves

I fail to see what the problem really in is that case?

All photographers are voyeurs. In fact, pretty much all humans are voyeurs; photographers just opt to record their interest.

As to your assertions and reaction: who are you to judge? Do you think your own photographs are above identical accusations?

Have I just arrived in Victorian England?

Geetee - why did you invade this other person's safe space ?

I find that behaviour very problematic.

Any why was there no trigger warning on this thread - I once had someone take a picture of my kneecap and I still haven't got over the trauma and now you've brought it all back!

Mods - No Platform him!

Hmmmm.. tough one.

It's kinda like those folks that scour up and down beaches snapping girls n moms in bikinis, from a distance, then post them on FB or some other such webApp..

I see it as very borderline voyeuristic, and to some degree invading the subjects personal privacy.

But..

We live in a world of snaps and being filmed in our daily lives, so aren't we kinda used to this now ?

Link, so we can judge for ourselves?

As to your assertions and reaction: who are you to judge? Do you think your own photographs are above identical accusations?

Who is anyone to judge? It's a good question. I think the answer is simply being a citizen, in the same way you would call out any 'perceived' social injustice, like parking in a disabled space or using your mobile phone while driving.

I personally believe it's everyone's place to challenge somthing they think is wrong (but note that that doesn't make it so; it still could be just your opinion, which is why I'm asking for views here).

As for my own work, yeag, pretty much I think it is entirely above identical accusations precisely because almost all my work is done with knowledge and consent and I go to great pains to avoid objectification of any kind. There are plenty of other accusations you could level at me but this isn't about me, it's about the other person.

Imagine how you'd feel if you were a woman and someone put photos of your legs all over the internet without your consent.

Imagine if it were your wife or daughter.

He may not MEAN for it to be bad, but doing stuff like this is not a pure isolated act. It has baggage.

If they're fat ugly legs that would be utterly repellent and should be legislated against.

Maybe legal but distinctly unethical and unpleasant and I congratulate you for calling him out.

Voyeurism
noun 1.
the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts, especially secretively.

It's all about intent, so entirely subjective.

I left a forum which was a large part of my life because there was a guy posting photos of bottoms taken in a similar fashion and the owner / mods seemed to think it was ok.

It's not ok, it's not any way to conduct yourself and you're quite right to challenge him.

Link?

For research purposes of course.

I don't want to look at photos of women's legs... no siree...

Link?

I left a forum which was a large part of my life because there was a guy posting photos of bottoms taken in a similar fashion and the owner / mods seemed to think it was ok.

Singlecrackworld?

and I go to great pains to avoid objectification of any kind.

Seriously. Given your choice of subjects I'm surprised by that statement, they are most definitely chosen for their appearance rather than their personality. You use your subjects as objects in the environment in the same way as some artists use inanimate objects.

If he repeatedly shoots/follows the same person then he could be causing harrassment.

Otherwise it's just very unprofessional in my opinion. Release forms etc is the proper way of doing it.

How much leg is he getting? All the way to the top?

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40897934 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40897934[/url]

Singlecrackworld?

Been a few years but it beats the morning coffee...

You use your subjects as objects in the environment in the same way as some artists use inanimate objects.

Ouch. But you make an interesting point. Do you think all photographic portraits then are pure objectification? Because it sounds like that is what you're saying. You may be right, in which case we would then need to debate whether objectification is even wrong and if it is why and how. That would be a debate worth having.

I photograph people for a lot of reasons; because I see something that I think tells an interesting story or asks important questions; becuase I think their life experiences might be very different to mine and I can learn from them; because there is a moment of pure aethetic beauty and truth that will make other people feel good for a moment. There is pleasure in looking (scopophillia) but that doesn't have to be degrading or negative.

I think 'objectification' is about power rather than scopophillia.

One of the things I work into my process is sharing my own personal experiences and vulnerabilities with the subject. I tend to share quite a bit as to why I do this, why this process. It's hard to be vulnerable but I do that so as to make the engagement less of a power imbalance.

Rubber_Buccaneer - Member

How much leg is he getting? All the way to the top?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40897934

Me too and this thread brought it to mind. Where do you draw the line though? I wouldn't do what the photographer in the OP is doing, at least not since I was about 12

It's fine to take a photo which has people in the background without their permission as they're not the subject of the shot.Totally wrong to take a photo of anyone without their permission, where the person is the subject of the Shot.
OP +1

Ministers should close a[b] "gap in the law"[/b] to prevent the taking of photos under women's skirts without their permission, the party says.

😛

I go to great pains to avoid objectification of any kind.

As soon as you publish or reveal your image to somebody else, you lose control over whether or not the subject is objectified. Don't deceive yourself otherwise. So I ask you: what purpose does objectification serve?

I'd say that having it as a project is fine, build up an album of your best shots and then move on to the next. If it's all he's photographing then that's not a project, it's a fetish.

It is without consent and an invasion of privacy at the very least.

Consent isn't required (though it's polite to ask), and he's presumably photographing people as they normally appear going about their business in public so there's no invasion of privacy. If he's snooping over backyard walls or taking surreptitious up-skirt shots then yes, we have a problem.

It's fine to take a photo which has people in the background without their permission as they're not the subject of the shot.Totally wrong to take a photo of anyone without their permission, where the person is the subject of the Shot.

Morally or legally? It's not wrong as far as the law is concerned (just pick up a tabloid newspaper if you don't believe me).

Morally, if it were me (as a rubbish amateur photographer) I'd seek permission if someone was the subject and was personally identifiable, even if it was after the shot had been taken (ie, "do you want me to delete this?") Not that it's a position I've ever put myself in.

as per the linked BBC article, it isn't voyeurism in Criminal law. They dropped a b*ll*ck when they drafted the legislation and there has to be an "expectation of privacy" by the victim - getting undressed in a changing room, walking around half-naked in your bedroom etc - so being topless on a beach, or being 'upskirted' doesn't fit.

We've had several incidents of upskirting, taking pictures of children in parks etc and usually tried to deal with it with public order or harassment offences.

It's fine to take a photo which has people in the background without their permission as they're not the subject of the shot.Totally wrong to take a photo of anyone without their permission, where the person is the subject of the Shot.

Surely that would have prevented most of the greatest photographic art of the 20th Century?

Seems to me that this conversation is very much going down the line of "one mans art is another mans pornography". Are we seriously suggesting that we begin to censor art because we suspect the [i]motives[/i] rather than the actions of the artist?

Jebus, our society really is ****ed

Are the legs identifiable (i.e. are the torso and face included)?

Are the legs identifiable (i.e. are the torso and face included)?

Sometimes but not always

Well if yes then I would say definitely out of order.

I photograph people for a lot of reasons; because I see something that I think tells an interesting story or asks important questions; becuase I think their life experiences might be very different to mine and I can learn from them; because there is a moment of pure aethetic beauty and truth that will make other people feel good for a moment. There is pleasure in looking (scopophillia) but that doesn't have to be degrading or negative.

I think 'objectification' is about power rather than scopophillia.

One of the things I work into my process is sharing my own personal experiences and vulnerabilities with the subject. I tend to share quite a bit as to why I do this, why this process. It's hard to be vulnerable but I do that so as to make the engagement less of a power imbalance.

Eh? I thought you just turned up at fun fairs, took pics of kids and then got threatened by mad mums and dads?

Regardless, I agreed with your assessment. Half of photographers are perverts, the other half take pictures of landscapes.

Morally Cougar.
Although I note with some satisfaction that so called "upskirting" is illegal in Scotland.

Although I note with some satisfaction that so called "upskirting" is illegal in Scotland.

if you've ever been to a Scottish wedding you'll understand why.

There's a contributor to the "pictures you're proud of" thread who posts stuff I enjoy viewing, admire even. Liverpool the Lakes and Scotland mainly with old tractors, decrepit caravans, falling down buildings. When people are in shot they are people going about their normal business, part of the landscape but not objects on display.

You do the same with old, decrepit and falling down people Geetee, and whilst I appreciate the artistry and I know you ask permission, The people and their sometimes pitiful state are the object of the photo rather than a part of the composition. This may seem harsh, I'm just expressing how the two styles impact me.

As for your voyeur, now I know he includes faces and the theme is ladies legs then yes, it's voyeurism.

Who is anyone to judge?

[img] ?itok=f1VsgehQ[/img]

[img] [/img]

if you've ever been to a Scottish wedding you'll understand why.

geetee1972 - Member

A photographer repeatedly photographs women's bare legs as a subject matter of interest. He photographs them with a long lens and without knowledge or consent (which is entirely legal) and then posts the results on a public forum. The images are relatively harmless in themselves but there is a consistent pattern of behaviour being demonstrated.

if it is public then you don't need permission but if you request for the person to stop taking pics then they should stop (Scotland - it would be disturbing the peace to continue). if the legs are not in clear view then that would be considered voyeurism in Scotland I believe.

is there any actual artistic merit in these pictures or are they just snaps of legs.

is there any actual artistic merit in these pictures or are they just snaps of legs.

Eye of the beholder and all that...the inefable [s]commun,[/s] [s]conunn[/s], question, innit?

Bet he lives with his mum and can't fold his pyjamas.
Not even with a cricket bat.

user-removed - Member
I left a forum which was a large part of my life because there was a guy posting photos of bottoms taken in a similar fashion and the owner / mods seemed to think it was ok.

I was thinking similarly 🙂 (or maybe that should be 🙁 - when I last checked the news wasn't all that positive) - though to be fair I think Simon's pics were of people he knew, and they were presumably aware of the pics!

You do the same with old, decrepit and falling down people Geetee

Eh? Are you sure you're thinking of me and not Bruce Gilden? Or perhaps you've confused me with Nan Goldin, Diane Arbus, Don McCullin etc.

First off, we're all broken, you, me, everyone. We're all carrying the shrapnel from some earlier trauma; some of us have more of it than others.

I do photograph some people that might fall under the description you offer here, but that's not the point of the photograph and it's certainly not objectification.

I give copies of everyone I photograph to those people; I share my own trauma with them as part of that process (because part of this for me is therapy; I still carry a lot of shrapnel from my time at primary school). I take time with everyone I photograph and only a few of them are what you (rather disparingly) call 'broken'.

If they are broken, and I'm taking time to talk to them and listen to them, does that make me a good person or a bad person? And if I photograph them, it's only after that engagement and with consent.

I would be very interested to hear the views of others on this subject but part of me can't help but wonder whether your view of my work has less to do with my work and more to do with me.

Oh and Andy's work is sunblime and if you take a moment to view his website you'll see a lot of portraits of people on there that are a lot like mine.

What may be voyeurism to one, may not be to an other, shirley?

It rather sounds like the OP has received short shrift from another forum and he's popped over to this one to get some moral support or, more likely, to try to induce a similar response here.

I find your questions interesting Mr geetee, however, they never appear to be genuine as you already appear to have your own indefatigable answer / opinion already locked and loaded, even when your understanding is different from the norm ( please do look up the definition of emotional intelligence, from your previous thread, I didn't pull you on that because ICBA, but I clearly can now). Which in itself, is an interesting approach, especially on this forum, for a number of reasons. None of which make me believe you're as intelligent as you try to make out. Sorry, possibly a bit harsh, but I can put a smiley in here to lighten the load if you like?

No judgement, just an observation. 😆

Surely that would have prevented most of the greatest photographic art of the 20th Century?

Seems to me that this conversation is very much going down the line of "one mans art is another mans pornography". Are we seriously suggesting that we begin to censor art because we suspect the motives rather than the actions of the artist?

Jebus, our society really is ****ed

This, basically.

Last time I looked fetshism isn't illegal or immoral. I take photos of people in public - not very good ones, it's true, but the process entertains me. I don't require permissison, though sometimes I ask for it. I don't go home and **** myself silly looking at the pics, but if I did, so what?

I take time with everyone I photograph and only a few of them are what you (rather disparingly) call 'broken'.

I didn't use the word 'broken' and yet you put it in quotes. Please don't misquote me. Only the people themselves know if they feel broken. I used the word 'pitiful' because the images provoke pity when I look at them - it's my reaction not their state, that's covered in the description. I'm just going on the images you've posted that have remained in my memory. Change the selection you post here and my impressions will change.

I think the problem these days is that people are being conditioned by the media to look for more sinister motives to mostly innocent past times.
Whilst the photographer is perhaps choosing a subject which people ascribe more sleazy values, the photographer may just be looking at legs as a photographic subject, in much the same way as I like to photograph say, chimney pots.
People are too quick to look to the perverts behind the lens.
I've been called a paedo on FB for trying to explain that you don't need to get parental permission to photograph someone's child, unwise it may be, but perfectly legal as long as you're not going to harass them or cause upset etc. Because somehow I was defending the paedophiles, innit.