Musings on Privacy and Legality

[tiggymalvern]

This morning an LJ friend of mine linked to a website with some paparazzi shots of Scott Caan, an actor in the new Hawaii 5-O TV series. Mr Caan is a surfer, and like thousands of surfers every day, he stands by his car and wraps a towel around his waist while he peels off his wetsuit and changes into dry clothes. As Mr Caan is now a Hot New Actor, unlike the others, he was being watched by a photographer who figured out that with the right camera angle and timing, he could grab a shot or two where the towel briefly draped open and Mr Caan's genitals were visible. These photographs are now available to anyone who cares to browse the internet for them.

I've been musing on this through the day, and my really big question is - why isn't this illegal?

There are voyeur laws to stop me from spying on my neighbour and taking pictures like this. There are stalking laws to prevent me from following someone around and making unreasonable intrusions into their lives. So why are those laws abandoned the moment the voyeuristic stalker has an expensive camera and a 400mm lens?

Sure, you can say, Mr Caan will have known photographers were around that day. He had the option of going to the bathroom to change instead of risking the towel. But why should he have to do that? The bathroom may be a mile down the beach. Why is Mr Caan not entitled to do what thousands of other people do every day, without his genitals being opportunistically exposed to the entire world?

There's an easy fix for this, surely. Pass a law making it illegal to publish photos of parts of anyone's body that are not considered acceptable to expose in public, without that person's written consent. People selling or publishing such photos will be fined a minimum of five times any profit they have made from the pictures. Anyone who wants to pose for Playboy can sign the form, and nobody's freedom of expression is impeded. Meanwhile, Mr Caan can dress in peace. The law would have the added benefit of putting a stop to the scumbags who publicise naked photos of their ex after a breakup - the photos may have been taken consensually, but no sticking them on the internet without written permission.

Who would object to that law, apart from the scuzzbag tabloids? So why doesn't it exist?

Comments

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

Oh heavens, Scott Caan naked.

Er. Um.

::coughs::

OKAY. Basically the rule is that if it's in public, it's legal to take a picture of it. Because otherwise journalists would, you know, never be able to get any damn work done.

I suspect a 'body exposure' law would probably die under a mountain of wank over community standards, though that may just be my cynicism talking. (Of course, were Mr. Caan under 18, anyone taking a photo would risk kiddie porn charges, but that's another story entirely.)

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

I know what the rule is, and I know that journalists have successfully argued to be able to photograph and report all kinds of dubious stuff on the grounds that it's 'in the public interest'. But seriously, where's the public interest in pictures of some guy's genitals, as long as he's not sticking them in a prostitute or a child at the time? That argument has been left way behind in the dust in this instance.

I suspect a 'body exposure' law would probably die under a mountain of wank over community standards

People would probably try to spin it that way - I'm a cynic too, and I'm sure that some members of certain religious minorities would be happy to argue that a woman's bare ankles are offensive. But we already have those exact standards defined in law to majority agreement. It can't be that hard to apply the same law to what it's legal to surreptitiously photograph, surely?

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

It's not a 'public interest' standard though-- it's a 'public place' standard. You can take a picture of two people having a conversation in a park, and it doesn't have to be in the public interest. (This is just an answer to the 'why is it legal' question, not any morals/ethics.)

It's possible. I would rather see it taken from a harrassment standard, as I think a lot of this stuff is. (Actually, I'd rather live in a world where no one would pay big bucks for tiny, fuzzy shots of naked celebrities, but that's another story.)

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

It's certainly harassment, the way these photographers follow people around absolutely everywhere. I think that's tougher to define the limits on, though. If you're going to allow any shots of celebs that aren't posed publicity photos, how do you define in a law exactly what photographers are and aren't allowed to do to get their shots? At least 'no genitalia' is legally distinct.

I'd rather live in a world where millions didn't buy People every week to read the latest scandals about 'celebs' I've never heard of, but that's how it is....

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

I've always wondered why people don't subsidize their friends/family members by having them sell candid shots, rather than letting said friends bleed them dry and having strangers do it. 'No genitalia' would be distinct!

Celebrity is a weird, weird thing.

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

What a great idea! When I become a worldwide celebrity, I'll keep it in mind XD

[solo.livejournal.com]

I was wondering the same thing just a week ago when pics of Yamapi in pretty much the similar situation were circulating around the fandom.

(I know you don't know who he is, but I don't know who your Scott Caan is, either, and anyway, it's not about that. *g*)

It's like you're considered to have signed away all normal rights to privacy once you become famous or even just well known. I don't think it's going to change while the public actually pay for the stuff the scuzzy journalists provide. :-(

A law would be great. But I can't see it happening, for the reasons you mention and also, because famous people can't afford to make huge waves about it without damaging their image, and therefore don't have a proper lobby.

Tangentially, I wonder now if there really isn't a law against posting nude pics of your ex. After all, that's not a public setting? But colour me ignorant; might even vary between countries.

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

It's like you're considered to have signed away all normal rights to privacy once you become famous

Exactly. If it's considered unpleasant and peeping-Tom-ish to take photos of your neighbour and put them all over the internet, why is the standard different for an actor or singer? Where in Mr Caan's contract does it say, 'I agree to film x episodes per year for x years, and I agree that all of society's normal moral standards of decency will no longer apply to me'?

There certainly isn't a law against posting nude pictures of your ex in the US, and the last I knew there wasn't in the UK either. Currently, the only recourse in the US is to prosecute for child pornography in cases where the ex is under 18, which becomes very silly when the perpetrator is usually also under 18. If you're over 18, you suck it down.

[imre-nico.livejournal.com]

You know what's kind of interesting?

Getting in or out of cars, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan all flash careless vadge that is caught by the paparazzi, but there's no outrage there, unless the outrage is "what a stupid whore, what was she thinking, surely she knows there are guys with cameras everywhere, how classless".

Caan displays an equal amount of brazen, careless genital nonchalance in public, gets his tackle snapped, but evokes an entirely different kind of response from most quarters: it's a horrible invasion of his privacy.

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

I would say that it's an equally horrible invasion of the women's privacy too, but my f-list being who they are, it tends to be the male genitalia that gets drawn to my attention, not the female!

I think women should be free to sunbathe topless on the beach if they so wish, without being photographed and displayed to the entire world too.

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

To add another wrinkle, I've read that sometimes the vadge pics may be of panties/hose-- it's just that the paparazzi flashes are so fucking bright it doesn't matter.

[imre-nico.livejournal.com]

Another wrinkle! HO HO! XD

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

Thank you, I'm here all week. Try the veal!

[tiggymalvern.livejournal.com]

That's interesting to know.

[lady-ganesh.livejournal.com]

There was a fairly notorious shot of, er, someone's (adult) daughter's dress becoming sheer when paparazzi flash hit it too.