Ellen-Jay Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 The question is in the title. I'm a little uneasy about them; sure, anyone walking about is by definition in the public domain, but does this give the liberty to publish their photos on the net without their permission? I say no. Seconds away...Round 1! Ellen-Jay --------------------------------------------------- The shoes aren't sensible, so why is the talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xaphod Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 The gutter press think it's OK, so I think street shots are OK. Xa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I think it depends on the circumstances. First off I don't think it's ethically wrong to take the pictures. If you go into a public place, you can expect to be photographed, seen, recorded, captured on CCTV etc etc. If you took some pics of women and posted/published them and said hey look at these sluts, phwoooaaar they are up for it then that's defamation of character and not ethical to boot. If you post pics of celebrities like Heat magazine or similar and say she/he looks rough, look at that nose job, what about that cellulite then I don't think that's ethical either but they get away with all the time. Occasionally they get sued, but not often enough for them to be down on the deal. If you use the pictures to advertise something then you need a model release form from the person whose picture you took. That's the law. However, if you just take some pictures and publish them as a "Historical record of fashions in 2004 in place xyz" then I think that's perfectly ethical. You are taking public domain pics and publishing them in the public interest of preserving a fashion archive which people can access. How else would we know what the streetscene looked like in 1904 if people hadn't taken photographs? This is historical education in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen-Jay Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 An interesting response Firefox, I don't think you can legitimately cite CCTV as a shining example of personal liberty - it is in fact the exact opposite. As for a fashion archive, dubious, there are plenty of Reference sources, be they high brow or the low brow "celeb" magazines. Celebrities are different and have to accept that they are always "on duty". I certainly wouldn't want to return from a shopping trip and see myself on the net (not even this site), a number of the street shots are full length, not just the high heels. Would you want your significant other/younger sister etc pictured and published unwittingly? "Historical education"! Wow! Ellen-Jay --------------------------------------------------- The shoes aren't sensible, so why is the talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Whenever did I "cite CCTV as a shining example of personal liberty." Some rereading of my post needed there maybe I wouldn't care if my photo was published on an information or historical context site. As for anyone elses photos I think you'd have to ask the individuals in question. Some won't care, some will. Ethically speaking, you can't treat celebrities any differently either. They have the same human rights as anyone else. There are some things you do which are going to annoy or upset other people in a small way. It's a fact of life. For example by buying leather shoes or eating meat you are annoying animal rights supporters. But, does that mean you are going to stop buying leather shoes so an animal rights lobbyist won't be upset. I think not. The deviding line in my mind is if something is intrinsically or rationally harmful. If you publish a photo in an unfair context and slag someone off, it is harmful. If you publish in a neutral public interest context, it isn't. That's how the law sees it too and it's pretty much what my personal ethics are based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen-Jay Posted October 29, 2004 Author Share Posted October 29, 2004 At least we agree that images taken by CCTV, and therefore seen by those unknown to you, are an infringement of civil liberty. And that even celebrities have human rights when it comes to their image being used. Being a question of ethics everyone of course will, and should have an opinion. (I remain unconvinced about the net being a fashion archive or indeed historical education - I presume you wouldn't apply that argument to photos taken covertly of, say, children in a playpark). I've made my opinion clear and won't bang on about it. however as this is a male dominated forum, and all street shots are of (mainly young) women, I'd submit this scenario for food for thought: Consider a secret male heel-wearer, concious that either his wife does, or would, strongly disapprove, and/or his family, friends, employer would react badly to his passion. On the encouragement of other forum members he plucks up courage whilst working in a town strange to him to finally induge in some street heeling, unbeknownst to him, and purely by chance a fellow forum member is lurking in the street with his digital camera. Even while he continues his liberating expedition his image appears on the forum/net. By the time he's driving home his wifefamily/friends/employers have seen his photo. By the time he gets home.......? Ellen-Jay --------------------------------------------------- The shoes aren't sensible, so why is the talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heelfan Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Hi Ellen-Jay, You may be interested to know that a special thread already exists for this topic. It was begun sixteen months ago in July 2003, and contains a pretty exhaustive in-depth debate on the ethics and law re. street-shots. It's called "Streetshots" and I've just brought it back up to the very top of "For Everybody" for you and others to peruse. For my part: 1) Everything that Firefox said above is correct under British law, and it appears to be much the same in most other Western countries. 2) Firefox could have added that as soon as one person wishes to take a photograph of another on private property, then that's different, and to remain legal, permission must be obtained. 3) He did not say that CCTV is an infringement of liberty - you are putting words into his mouth. 4) I agree with the law as it stands. It has evolved over many decades, and I think it is very fair, sensible and even-handed in these respects. Basically, before going into any public place, each of us decides what to wear and whether to dress soberly or outrageously. Now, once we step out into in the public domain, we stand up to be counted. We have gone public, which can and often does include people snapping away with their cameras. So to me, it is entirely irrelevant whether I am seen first-hand, or via a publically taken photograph. It's all equally PUBLIC. As Firefox says, it would contravene certain laws to cause a nuisance by sticking a camera up someone's skirt, or subsequently publishing the photographs in a way that would cause defamation or malignment to the subject. But apart from that, as an enthusiastically up-beat and optimistic sort of chap, I assume that each of us should be PROUD to be seen in what we wear, otherwise why wear it? Also, if photographed, why not feel even prouder still! The one thing that gets up my nose is the growing Nanny State where we can't do this and we can't do that and our children can't have school photos taken any more etc. etc. etc. etc. If it gets to the stage where we can't even photograph a fashionable person walking along a public street, then it surely it would be time for us all to think about topping ourselves! Let's all hang on to a life! Cheerfully yours, Heelfan Onwards and upwards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffM Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 FF said if you just take some pictures and publish them as a "Historical record of fashions in 2004 in place xyz" then I think that's perfectly ethical. You are taking public domain pics and publishing them in the public interest of preserving a fashion archive which people can access. From time to time we get news items on TV about over weight people. These inveribly mean showing pics of over weight people walking along the streets. Here is Oz this is perfectly acceptable by law. Using this as a precedent then showing people in high heels when the subject of the news item is fashion and related subjects, it should be quite OK. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 If someone is something then you are not defaming their character by referring to it. It's the same with slander or libel. If someone calls you a thief or a slut and it's actually proven you are a thief or a slut then the comment may be undesirable, but if it is true then bad luck. I believe it is not legal to do street photogpahy in France but most other Western places it is OK. As for CCTV cameras I've mixed feelings. On balance I'd rather have them. Say a rapist could be brought to justice via CCTV evidence so he was taken off the streets and no longer a threat. Is that more important than someone feeling that their liberty has been offended by someone looking at their picture. What's the difference between looking at a picture and seeing them in person. I suppose some TG type people may be pretty worried that someone may see them dressed up on a camera and their cover is blown, but I'd say be honest with society. If you want to be a TG or wear some fashion item heels just do it. Let people know by doing it. If they don't like you for it, they aren't worth knowing anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris100575 Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Personally I feel that street shots should not show the face. A photo of a street scene depicting a crowd is quite different from a photo of one particular woman chosen because of her sexy footwear. As for CCTV, in general I think it's a good thing. I don't feel that my civil liberties are being infringed, it's not like a town centre is a private place anyway. Unless you're breaking the law, you don't have anything to worry about. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Here are my opinions on this subject. If you are in any location where a person has an expectation of some form of privacy, photos cannot be taken without your permission. This includes such locations as inside your home and public restrooms. If you are out in public view, photos would be allowed since privacy could not be expected. This would include locations such as walking on a public sidewalk, shopping in a store, eating in a restaurant, and sitting in an automobile on a public street. However, under no circumstance can photos of you be used for commercial gain without your permission. If non-flattering photos of you are to be taken, your identity should be protected unless you give permission otherwise. This would hold true for all circumstances regardless of any commercial gain. click .... click .... click .... The sensual sound of stiletto heels on a hard surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Most stores and malls do not allow you to take photographs on their premises. I think it has somethig to do with preserving the commercial identity of their operation whatever tha means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heelfan Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Hi PJ! In fact, you are simply giving your approval to the law, exactly as it stands, as outlined above by Firefox and added-to by me. I think the law is fair, and in doing so, I agree with you! Cheerfully yours, Heelfan Onwards and upwards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba136 Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 I don't understand the great concern here. The chances that anyone that has been secretly photographed walking down the street will ever see their pictures posted on a website is very unlikely. And, as long as the picture taker doesn't include any "identifying characteristics," that make the subject easily recognizable, when posting the pictures, they are harmless. It's that simple. End of discussion. Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen-Jay Posted October 30, 2004 Author Share Posted October 30, 2004 Thanks guys, interesting, but hardly illuminating responses coming as they do from male forum members (and, with the greatest respect, the usual suspects). It is hardly surprising that there are so few female members here - and any passing by reading this thread will no doubt move on!!) No matter; a request (call it a challenge maybe) how about some genuine street shots of guys in heels by Christmas. Heelfan; well done for posting without promoting the HeelMeet or Lucy's new story off-topic!!! Ellen-Jay --------------------------------------------------- The shoes aren't sensible, so why is the talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Oh well Ellen, you're the one introducing sexual strereotypes presuming male or female readers will act one way or the other. I'm quite content to sit back and see what anyone will post regardless of their gender. I do have some sympathy with your particular viewpoint, but you've not really made a convincing argument. You've just said you're uneasy and you don't like it but you haven't explained why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JinxieKat Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 Oh well.. I'll guess I'll have to speak of up for the ladies.. I don't have any problems with how the law is in the US. Pretty much as has been stated.. if your in public your out of luck, unless it is for comvercial use and then they have to get permission. If someone took pictures of me and put them up on the net.. Oh well. I don't like my picture taken in general so I'd be embarased, but would I pitch a fit, or think beyond that initial embarasment, nahh. No point. Though, if they were saying the nice things that folks tend to say about streetshots on here.. well that's another story. Jinxie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen-Jay Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 Oh well Ellen, you're the one introducing sexual strereotypes presuming male or female readers will act one way or the other. I'm quite content to sit back and see what anyone will post regardless of their gender. I do have some sympathy with your particular viewpoint, but you've not really made a convincing argument. You've just said you're uneasy and you don't like it but you haven't explained why. Simple really: invasion of privacy, and I find the idea of covert photography unsavoury. End of. Ellen-Jay --------------------------------------------------- The shoes aren't sensible, so why is the talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba136 Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Your opinion is valid, Ellen-Jay. I don't believe anyone will try to talk you out of it. The laws are the laws until modified, removed, or rewirtten. The point is that anyone that is so against a law as it is written has an opportunity to contact the "law makers" and convince them to change it. Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heelfan Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Hi Ellen-Jay, You've just got to the nub of things by making a contradiction. You said streetshots are an "Invasion of privacy". Now the whole point is the when you or anybody else dresses in any chosen manner and goes out into the street, you are NOT in privacy. You are in PUBLIC, not in private. So once any of us are in public, we are all in the FULL PUBLIC GAZE whether this be by direct eyeballing or via the taking of photograph or videos or CCTV. It makes no difference, and nor should it. Furthermore, the legality of photogaphing and publishing shots anyone in public fully applies even when faces are shown and can be recognised. Many of us on these forums mainly choose to publish shots of heel-wearers where the face is averted from the camera, but that is only our choice out of good manners, not a requirement of the law. However, Ellen-Jay, in fairness to us well-meaning guys that you call "The usual suspects", you only have to look on the "Put a Face To The Name" thread, or Firefox's "Aesthetic Heels For Men" Site and you'll see that we've all published full-length, full-face shots of ourselves wearing heels up to 5" including stilettos for the whole of the world to see! Now,as it's 100% legal, and as us "usual suspects" and many other guys have stood up to be counted in full-length shots (when it could be argued that we should be a lot more embarrassed than a girl) , then why be provacative and challenge us to post yet more full-length photographs of ourselves before Christmas when we've already done it over a period of years, and you've never done it. What's your problem? Secondly, as another member pointed out above, it's not as though any of the street-shots on these forums bear derogatory captions. If they were, then you'd be protected because unfounded libel counts as defamation and you would be fully protected. But on the contrary, people publish these shots because they're fantastic and great and wonderful and they say so in the captions, and so do the responders. So, again on this second count, if we choose to be photographed merrily whilst you (as is your prerogative) choose not to, then what's your problem? I'm saddened by your "uneasiness", because virtually everybody else (including me) upon finding these forums says: 1) How wonderful to discuss high heels without any pornography attached. 2) What a very friendly lot we all are. I don't think any of us should be tarred as "Suspects". We are all enjoying the wonderful subject of High Heels strictly within the law and strictly barring pornography and personal malignment, and pursuing it all with the utmost harmless enthusiasm, and simply entering into the spirit of the whole thing! Cheerfully yours, Heelfan Onwards and upwards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen-Jay Posted October 31, 2004 Author Share Posted October 31, 2004 I don't remember mentioning pornography, nor have I been questioning the validity of anyone consenting to whatever photo they so desire. Heelfan: The "ethical" element of the original question very clearly relates to the issue of consent (clearly you are content to have full length shots taken - that was not the point!!) And yes we all enjoy, by definition of being here in the first place, high heels. It's about respecting opinions and each other (and those in the street who don't the choice) - and given that you have previously badgered me to show more of myself than I had clearly stated I was willing to do I don't beleive you have the right to preach. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I have a problem! Ellen-Jay --------------------------------------------------- The shoes aren't sensible, so why is the talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefox Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 Ethics for me is about a set of personal or moral standards. The law is a set of standards imposed by society. In respect of street photograhs, my standards happen to concur with those promulgated by (UK) society law. You've made it clear that your personal standards differ from that, Ellen. Of course, I respect this viewpoint. You are entitled to hold a different opinion. It doesn't mean that I would stop taking general street photos because you personally don't like it though. It does however mean that I wouldn't knowingly take a street photo of you and if I ever did take a photo of someone who didn't like it, I would not put that photo on the net or elsewhere if they requested me not to do so. That could come about either because they saw me taking a photo, or they saw the photo and asked me to remove it. In either case I would comply with their wish without hesitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJ Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 At least we agree that images taken by CCTV, and therefore seen by those unknown to you, are an infringement of civil liberty.... In my case, I feel a sense of security being in a public area that has CCTV coverage. I even don't mind shopping in stores knowing that I'm being watched by hidden security personnel. ....Consider a secret male heel-wearer, concious that either his wife does, or would, strongly disapprove, and/or his family, friends, employer would react badly to his passion. On the encouragement of other forum members he plucks up courage whilst working in a town strange to him to finally induge in some street heeling, unbeknownst to him, and purely by chance a fellow forum member is lurking in the street with his digital camera. Even while he continues his liberating expedition his image appears on the forum/net. By the time he's driving home his wifefamily/friends/employers have seen his photo. ..... This is the reason why so many people with such secrets "stay in the closet". But even the privacy of your own home is no guarantee your secret won't be discovered by another family member. The point being is that anytime you perform an action, there is a chance that it can be witnessed. Performing actions out in public increases the risk of being observed. I myself do not want to be seen by family or friends while I'm crossdressed. When I do venture out in public crossdressed, I'm more concerned about being identified rather than being seen or even photographed. So I utilize disguises and low-light secluded locations to minimize the risks. One thing you must realize is that your hypothetical heel-wearing friend has more than being photographed to be concerned about. His fate would be the same if he was just observed in public by either his wife, a family member, employer or friends. Also, I believe that if this person took steps to protect or hide his identity, it's possible the internet photographs could do no harm. click .... click .... click .... The sensual sound of stiletto heels on a hard surface. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genebujold Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Whether or not they're legal or ethical depends upon what the pics are used for and how they're displayed. If you were taking pics of heels (waist and below) and displaying them on the Internet in a "heel-appreciation" mode, that's both legal and ethical. If you're including people's faces, and you're not displaying them for profit, in most countries that is legal, but I question its ethics. All of us are entitled to a certain amount of privacy, and I do not believe my decision to allow my image to be seen in one location by the surrounding people in any way implies my approval for someone to show my image to others in other locations. If you're talking about displaying people's faces for profit, it's illegal unless you obtain a model release. Furthermore, I believe displaying anyone's picture in a manner they would never approve is unethical, and probably illegal, too. Obviously, this would include doctored images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heelfan Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Hi Ellen-Jay, It would never be my intention to "badger" anyone into doing full-length shots, or anything else for that matter. It was you that started your "Posing Question" thread expressly to ask us all what sort of heely photos we liked best, and simply, we all told you. At least six of us expressed the greatest preference for full-length shots. In case the identifying of the face was your only worry, I posted twice more to reassure that the visibility of the actual face is totally unimportant, citing actual examples of nice but anonymous shots, and in fairness, I was very careful to add therein that it was entirely up to you whether you followed our suggestions or not. What could be fairer than that? I.e. was simply giving answers your question with my usual enthusiasm, and of course subsequently I fully respect your choice of carrying on with legs and feet shots only, as I indicated earlier. In fact, the latter are greatly appreciated by me and many other members, so please keep it up! I hope this posting will reassure you that you can look upon me (and the other "suspects") not as opponents but as friends in this usually-happy "family". It's great when we're all nice to each other! Cheerfully yours, Heelfan Onwards and upwards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen-Jay Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 Nothing wrong with a healthy exchange of views. Everyone is still friends as far as am concerned Ellen-Jay --------------------------------------------------- The shoes aren't sensible, so why is the talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba136 Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 My dad used to tell me that "actions have consequences" whenever I did something that he thought wasn't in my best interests. I believe everyone that does anything surreptitiously has to realize the consequences of "being discovered/found out." That would go double for any man wearing high heels in public over a man that only wore them in his own home. You can't do anything in public with full confidence that your "privacy" will remain intact and you won't be seen and "found out" by an acquaintence, friend or relative that coincidentally happened to be in the same place at the same time. Extending your logic, Ellen-Jay, if you are attending a sporting event and the TV Blimp flys over and takes a "long shot" of the crowd in the stadium, and you happen to be in it, by your definition then, your right to privacy is being violated if they broadcast the shot without your permission. And that is, any way you look at it, absurd. Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen-Jay Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 Thanks for calling me absurd Bubba - very friendly. Ellen-Jay --------------------------------------------------- The shoes aren't sensible, so why is the talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba136 Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 It wasn't meant as a slight. Sorry you took it that way as I said in an earlier post that your opinion is valued. However, even taffy pulled to thinly, breaks. By that I mean some peoples demands are impossible to satisfy. And, based on your well articulated and oft repeated position, yours have reached that point. Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellen-Jay Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 Don't recall making any demands, I have a view, others have their's. Ellen-Jay. --------------------------------------------------- The shoes aren't sensible, so why is the talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts