Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Chris Jacob
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/29/09
I mean, come the fuck on!
Where are the RESULTING PICS?
07/29/09
07/30/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
She puts one hand on her hip and the other on the hand support, kind of tilting her hips, but in a completely not intentionally provocative way.
Suddenly I just hear a deafening loud "CLICK!". One bastard on my side was taking a picture of her butt and forgot to disable the analog camera mimicking sound.
What a huge idiot.
I hope these ads (which are quite nice) do not inspire such a stupid behavior.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
The guys taking pictures just have no imagination.
07/29/09
And for the record, I would definitely know that the guy in the pigeon photo was photographing me and not the pigeon. Same with the crouching guy. The beach guy might be able to get away with it but it still feels like there's a safe zone of distance and once people cross it, you know they're up to no good.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
See?
07/29/09
07/29/09
I suppose you don't think guys should look at you either.
If you don't want men to see your body, I suggest a burka.
Ps:
99% of the time a guy is looking at you, it's with blatant sexual motivation.
Excuse me. 79%. 20% of men are gay.
07/29/09
07/29/09
I'm a straight man. I don't stand around checking out women. If a woman catches my eye I might glance for a split second before I realize it's impolite to sexualize a complete stranger who is just trying to live a normal life like the rest of us. A little internal censoring and self-control out of respect for others is, shockingly, not difficult. I don't like having people stare at me in public for any reason, and I'm not going to do it to them.
Yes, in public there's no absolute right to privacy, but most men don't have to worry about being stared at wherever they go, so it's not a feeling we often experience. When you are out, there's a certain anonymity, people don't really notice you and you're free to be comfortable with yourself without being scrutinized. Being a woman, especially one that is generally attractive, you can't step foot in public without being stared at and scrutinized. Being constantly scrutinized is NOT comfortable. Whatever slight amount of privacy in public that most men are afforded, most women are denied. I seriously doubt it's an entirely comfortable experience.
07/29/09
07/29/09
Now don't get me wrong, I am married, but I still look. I don't STARE, but I glance if it catches my eye. But if I was single, you're DAMN RIGHT I would stare. Sex is embedded in our DNA.
/soapbox rant
07/29/09
You basically cite a phenomenan that is caused by the exact circumstances I was talking about earlier, and act like that somehow nullifies my argument. Women are expected to be sexually attractive and available for men's consumption. If they attempt to fulfill that role, voluntarily or involuntarily, they're given positive feedback by friends and strangers alike and become more ingrained in the behaviors that result in that positive feedback. The women who don't fulfill that role are still given attention, which they don't even want, and are scrutinized and judged...even if they're NOT dressed provacatively, in which case the question is "Why is she not dressed for our consumption?" The only option is to never go out in public. You think dressing in entirely unrevealing clothing is going to help? That just changes the context of the attention. It's still attention, it's still invasive, and it's still unwelcome.
Women are raised to be available sexual objects but are also punished for fulfilling that role. If they dress or act that certain way, they're sluts, whores, etc. If they don't, they're uptight, bitches, ice queens, dykes, etc. Lucky is the woman that is able to walk that very narrow tightrope we've erected for them.
You say "most women" walk around in revealing clothing to entice you to look. I suspect this may be because you spend a lot of time in a mall and that's more common there. But where is the cutoff? What do they have to wear to keep men from giving them attention they don't want? Do they have to roll out of bed in the morning with greasy hair and wear a dirty t-shirt and sweats recovered from their floor to keep from attracting our attention? What's so wrong with them simply existing in the public sphere without the extra attention and scrutinization tacked onto it?
What is so hard about just deciding not to give strangers undue attention? Why are women assumed just to exist in public for our consumption? If it's so incredibly hard not to look, then at least get up some courage and introduce yourself.
07/29/09
No, it's the woman's fault for being a paranoid prude.
If you want to be a parnoid prude, wear less revaling clothing.
I shouldn't have to give up MY right to take photos in public because some crazy woman thinks I'm taking pictures of her.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
looks like we'll need a fisheye to fit everything into that small avatar space of yours XD
07/29/09
07/29/09
It's just a timeless technique they use to keep men in line. Nothing new.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
Edit @switchblade saints: Strange, you see him as being posessive and overreacting, and I see his straying from violence as the epitome of gentlemanliness. Eh.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
Otherwise, you could essentially never take a photograph outside in a populated area. How often do random people end up our pictures?
This woman's husband sounds like an amazing douchebag.
Now publishing someone's image for profit is a different story.
07/29/09
I just made your avatar picture my desktop.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
On the other hand, I don't get to choose whether people look at me or say hello. I don't get to choose how close they stand to me on the subway. None of these create a discrete, recognizable harm, and while I may find some of them irritating at some level, I don't consider any of them a problem.
Plus, if I go around saying hello to people and looking at them or inviting strangers to talk to me or look at me, then it seems like it would be odd to take offense and turn around and say "Hey, hey, hey I can't believe you just tried to say hello to me when I didn't actively invite you to say hello to me."
I'm just having a hard time seeing the lines. But I figure they must be in there somewhere, because obviously you aren't the first person to feel that way.
07/29/09
Oh and my husband isn't the douchebag, I am, I asked him to do it.
07/29/09
For me it's about respect, I show it to others and ask they do the same for me
07/29/09
07/29/09
Now we're on the same page.
07/29/09
I have sympathy for your position that you shouldn't be photographed without your consent. Unfortunately, the law says that in public, you can be. The appropriate recourse would have been asking the property owners to request that he desist, which he is then required to do.
07/29/09
07/29/09
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
It seems to me unless the property owner had some restrictions on photography, or the guy was trying to take an innappropriate photo of you, you were in the wrong legally.
07/29/09
The husband did nothing illegal. As far as I know, it's not illegal to shame people into allowing you access to their property.
Now, if he'd punched the guy, or ripped the camera out of his hands, that might be a different matter. Maybe. I very much doubt that the cops would be sympathetic to the 'photographer'.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
The cops may not be sympathetic to it, but if he knew his rights, he likely could have had the husband arrested. At a minimum, he would have a civil suit.
07/29/09
Yes the guy was told to leave, but my husband is friends with the bouncers and he would have been kicked out anyways.
07/29/09
If you knew the bouncer, why not just ask the bouncer to tell the guy to stop? The property owner has the right to revoke the consent that ordinarily applies to photographing public and semi-public places.
I'm a photographer, so I come at this from a different angle (er, not an ultra-wide angle like the picture, either). If someone took my camera and deleted anything from it, I would spend money to see them prosecuted to the fullest extent permitted by law. I don't go around shooting people for nefarious or kinky reasons, but I can easily see taking pictures in a of friends in a bar and not really giving much of a damn about who was in the background. If someone as a result of that demanded my camera, you bet they would have some consequences. You are lucky that this guy happened to be a slimebag and didn't stand his ground.
07/29/09
I'm just saying...
And to be fair, as a club photographer, if anyone asks me to delete a picture, I'll do it. Even if you're less than polite while asking me to delete the picture, there's no worries, I'll do it. And there's so many other people to photograph in the club anyways, I would have to be stupid to get into arguments with potential drunk/high/tripping people.... for a picture.
I also tend to remember who doesn't want pictures because I tend to cross path with them often. No point in having them all fired up again. The clubbing/pub world is a small world. It's just funny that after they see my work, they come to me and actually insist on me taking their picture. A request that I have the luxury of refusing. :)
07/29/09
You're right, he should have asked one of our friends, but he didn't, hindsight is 20/20
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
I don't have any issues with promotion photographers, you guys are polite and respectful and when you do post images they are very flattering (and done so with permission!)
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
The fact is, the husband wasn't holding a gun, or a knife, or anything else. I suppose his hands are deadly weapons... but possessing hands doesn't seem like solid evidence of intent to do harm. Short of immediate means (like a gun), a history of violence, or unambiguous language (e.g."I'm going to slit your throat with a knife"), it's tough to prove an implied threat in a civil case, let alone in a criminal setting. At least in my county.
Besides, the fact that the husband is friends with the bouncer means we have reason to believe his 'threat' could simply be to have the photographer banned from the bar.
07/29/09
I work in television in the UK. If I wanted to use your image without your consent, I would have to make a very convincing argument about it being in the public interest.
So, I'm with you and your husband. There's a world of difference between you sharing your image, and some idiot taking it without your consent.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
I'm married to one. Does that count as "having one?"
07/29/09
Ever heard of a private investigator? They take pictures of people without that person knowing. You can be on a trip and take a picture of an interesting looking shopkeeper. You can take a picture of some guy walking around in a funny hat. You can take a picture of a pretty girl in a bar.
Crazy thing these cameras. We are actually allowed to use them.
When you publish these images for profit (i.e. use them on your television station), you are stepping across a line.
07/29/09
07/29/09
But for most people it would depend on the tone, and words being used. Like if a woman was walking by and I said to my friends "Hey look at sweet tits!" while I might think this is a flattering way to describe her (I'm not that stupid), I'm betting she most likely wouldn't. However, if you are just saying how beautiful said woman is, then yes, I imagine she would find it flattering.
But the problem is that our society has made it creepy for photographers to take pictures of unsuspecting people. What with the up skirt, topless sunbather, spring break photos. Taking photos from across the bar of unsuspecting women just seems creepy by default. Nobody's gonna think this guy is Ansel Adams anymore. And they're most likely not going to find it flattering.
But in the end this is all my opinion, and I could be completely wrong, which is what this all seems to boil down to. Now I'm off to imagine the day I hear women talking dirty about me.
I know it's not automatically true since it's in Wikipedia, but for kicks:
Photography and the Law
07/29/09
07/29/09
Assault does not require a weapon, nor does it require a history of violence, nor does it require physical contact. Assault is creating apprehension of physical harm or unwanted physical contact in the victim. If you don't think the husband was implicitly threatening harm demanding the camera, you probably need a refresher course in the law.
Maybe he walked over to the guy and said "look, I'd really appreciate it if you deleted the creepy pictures of my wife that you took," he was smiling, and everyone would agree there were no hard feelings. That is not the sense of the story I got, and certainly not the philosophy espoused by the OP. Besides, if he actually touched the guy and took the camera, you are looking at battery--which you will find defined as unwanted contact, not physical harm.
It's a bad move. Let the property owner deal with it or go to a different bar. It's not worth even a small chance you are going to end up on the wrong side of the bars, even for a night, or the prospect you are going to have to shell out for an attorney to defend you. There are better ways to deal with it.
07/29/09
I think the large majority of people in this thread haven't been in many bars before. The ONLY time I have ever seen police show up for a bar fight are when someone is stabbed, or someone is shot.
It has been my personal experience that even when a fight breaks out in front of the police, the worse that happens is they spend the night in the drunk tank, or are driven around the block in the back of the squad car.
Most of the time the police have something better to do than arrest someone for deleting pictures off of another person's camera. I would like to the 911 call asking for help because someone's pictures were deleted.
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
07/29/09
http://jenoptik-inc.com/joomla/images/stories/big_a03.jpg
07/29/09
07/29/09
And, you can use Photoshop to remap them to get rid of fisheye distortion to a degree.
12/29/08
Also is it really safe to slap a magnet on the back of my iPhone? I remember a friend being dared to drag a magnet over the screen of a loathed 8th grade teacher's computer on the last day of school and it wasn't pretty.
12/29/08
12/29/08
A Magnet.
12/29/08
They really only ever affected magnetic storage, and platter style hard drives (the former is dead, and the latter is typically shielded now-a-days).
Doesn't bother SSDs in the least, unless you are talking about MRI magnitude forces...
12/29/08
12/29/08
haha
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08
12/29/08