Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Clandestine Panchira Photos

An early example of an upskirt; oh, and women in the 18th Century didn't wear panties.Today I want to talk about clandestine panchira photos. Sure, you have heard about these photos, haven't you? I have chosen Fragonard's The Swing (1767) to illustrate this type of image. Now, you have an idea of what I mean.

There are a lot of weird sexual oddities – and I never really understood the whole upskirt thing. I remember reading about some court decision, where the courts decided that if people took public photos of upskirts, they could. It was not an invasion of privacy. It was lewd, the courts said, but it was okay for photographers to take pics up women's skirts without their permission.

At the time I was aghast, but you know, I am an amateur photographer, and I have taken lots of pictures of people throughout the years. No upskirts, no nude photos, none of that. Old men fishing at sunset, little girls and boys playing in sprinklers, motorcycle enthusiasts at a rest stop, a band marching in a parade. I took all of these pictures without consent.

Well, there are a few differences. I did not place the pictures on a website, charging $14.95 per month for access, and advertising with pop-ups. But still, when you are in public, you need to know that within reason, your image in public can be snapped, filmed or otherwise captured and you have little recourse.

I have a YouTube friend that had her videos downloaded and placed on another site, with whoever stole them indicating that the person in the video was the poster of the videos. In essence, the person who stole the videos stole the identity of my friend. Well, this is a little difference then walking down a flight of stairs with a skirt that accidentally reveals a wink of one's panties. In public, I have a reasonable assumption that prying eyes or a prying camera lens will see me. And since I was 12, I have been practicing ensuring that my panties remain hidden.

Now, though, I would think if you place anything on the web – pictures, video or words, you will probably have your work stolen. I have seen my work lifted – not even my best work. I have seen YouTube videos taken, songs lifted from record labels (think Napster on steroids). I know with Web 2.0 and all, we are more connected than ever. Some of this is good. Most of this is good. But now, we have a few people (multiplied by thousands because of the power of the Internet) that get their jollies by either stealing stuff or placing micro-lenses in public restrooms. Now, I can reasonably expect privacy when voiding my bladder. I mean, I would even think judges from the courts would agree to that.

11 comments:

patti_cake said...

Leesa I am hoping for privacy when voiding my bladder or in a store dressing room or tanning bed but I guess you just never really know. Personally if someone has spied on me i'd rather NOT know! ICK!

~Deb said...

If you think about it, regardless if your pictures have copyrights, if it's on the computer and able to right click and be saved, then it will always be stolen. People use them for youtube videos, to produce movie clips to get their point across, and even if it is stolen----no one is going to go through the motions of suing them, due to the headache legalities. If your work is to be protected, get that program where people can't right click and save. I forget what it's called, but there is an option so that no one can take it. NO PHOTOBUCKETING EITHER! (ha) Then you're looking for your stuff to get taken.

Leesa said...

patti_cake: some privacy is expected.

~deb: YouTube is starting to crack down on copyrights.

TrappedInColorado said...

Leesa... I am very aware of a person's privacy when I am out taking shots. Respect and dignity also. I oft times wonder about those pics of people during a tragedy where they are obviously in emotional or physical pain. I would never take a pic at that time. I guess a newspaper photographer is expected to but still... I use a telephoto for pics of people who are at the park and such. As far as upskirts? I don't get it either. Pics that is. Hey! If a strong breeze happens to lift a lady's skirt up.. well.. I didn't do it! :) When is the windy season in Savannah? ;)

Ian Lidster said...

When I was a young reporter/photographer I once took what I thought was an adorable photo of a group of little girls watching a gymnastics event. One I thought was extremely cute and should run prominently in the paper. My editor said, no, he couldn't run it. Why? I asked. "Because you can see that one little girl's panties." She was all of eight years old. So, such is the power of this sort of thing, and the kid, he believed, would have to put up with "I see London, etc." in the schoolyard.
Otherwise, upskirts. Most definitely a 'guy' thing and it's something to do with it being forbidden. You can see a girl in tiny bikini bottoms at the beach and there is nothing voyeuristic, but if you get a chance to look up her skirt, you will take it.
Ian

Anonymous Boxer said...

I design products and they are on my company website... they are lifted all the time. It makes me see red, but in order to calm myself down, I tell myself it's a price we pay to have everything at our finger tips.

RWA said...

There always seems to be a way to get around the protection they come up with. Some sites have it set where you can't right-click and save pictures.

However, you can save the entire page to your hard drive and get the picture that way. Or it shows up in your temporary internet files.

It amazes me, really, that there haven't been more copyright issues involving the internet in courts. Of course, they may have been there, I guess, and we just haven't heard about them.

Prata said...

There is no way to ensure that your pictures on the web will not get stolen. If it is on the web, it can be taken (you do not need to be able to right click that image). The protocol has no protections for any image. If the server can address the image, you can take it without regard for the javascript right click protection. In case any of you were curious. The net was never designed to provide you with privacy, if you want your stuff to be private and unstolen then do not put it up on a public site. It's public for a reason.

Also, I'm not a big fan of upskirt pictures, but I do have to admit that if I see a girl walkin' up the stairs and there's a risk of seeing up her skirt I don't consciously look away. I don't think that's malignant or anything.

kathi said...

Most the girls I see wear skirts short enough to where you don't really have to look 'up' them to see anything, they're already showing it.
I know, that's not the point of the post, sorry.

GW Mush said...

Leesa,

I do a good job of keeping my panties hidden also.

Good luck with your bladder and stuff. Hope you find the privacy that you deserve so much:)

Leesa said...

trapped: being respectful is a matter of culture. Some cultures don't want any pictures taken (robs the soul, you know).

ian: I can sort of see the editor's point. I mean, if I was the little girl. But yeah, it is sort of harmless (save the embarrassment of the little girl).

boxer: sorry for the lifting.

rwa: I think, eventually, copyright laws will change to suit current practices.

prata: reasonable comments. I guess my point, which I did not effectively make, is that you should not expect privacy when in a public park, walking down stairs or anything placed on the Internet.

kathi: yeah, skirt length used to be very predictable. Now, not so much.

gw: glad to hear your are modest.