Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-14-2017, 04:59 PM   #14281
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Otago, New Zealand
Posts: 422
From a 2005 case against him;

"Rowe photographed them from inside his van and was found to have more than 100 rolls of films of girls aged 10-15. "

Nobody has mentioned what he was tresspassed for - but he is definitely a serial pest and a probable pervert.

10-14-2017, 06:13 PM   #14282
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Clarkey's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brampton, ON, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,456
QuoteOriginally posted by awa355 Quote
You are in trouble,, definitely need a longer zoom..
Well, they say size isn't everything..... I had my Panny gear with me, and that currently tops out at 200mm FOV.

QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
It's what he was doing with the photos that gave cause to the conviction. What he did, was create digital photo albums sorted to physical characteristics of the individuals photographed. And the prosecution made it clear that his "purpose" for creating those albums were of the, shall we say, self gratifying nature. In order to obtain a conviction, I feel they overstepped the mark, even if we may find his actions deplorable.
Yep.

QuoteOriginally posted by zkarj Quote
Indeed, but here's the bit that appears to override "common sense" in this situation...


If ever there was an inexact definition in law, that would be it – accepted community standards.

In my view, the fact he was taking photos should not be a technicality of the case, only that he has photos. There are numerous creeps who have been convicted for possessing "collections of disturbing images" and if these meet that definition, then go after him on that account. Not for taking a photo of a person or persons in a public place.
That would also seem logical to me. Per Mark, if this was a "habit", and the "sorted" digital albums were available to the prosecution (clearly they were), then possession (evidence), rather than the picture-taking act would have been easier to go after.

To clarify my earlier post; unless you have the photographed person's explicit consent in Quebec, you can be done for what this person did - if the photographed person makes a complaint.
10-14-2017, 06:35 PM   #14283
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Otago, New Zealand
Posts: 422
I suspect he has just shitted the cops off wickedly by photographing schoolkids in the past - not actually illegal, but very deeply 'odd'

I wonder if their target isn't just getting his name out there.

Here in NZ we do have rules about consent with regards to making money or promoting values - though this is very gooey and legally ish'ish - general rule of thumb tends to 'ask nicely & don't be a dick about it'
10-14-2017, 08:30 PM   #14284
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 11,250
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Kiwigeezer Quote
Hard to see how taking a photo in a public place (whatever the intent) could lead to a conviction of "doing an indecent act with intent to offend". I would have thought it'd take something different than pressing the shutter release.
That's my view as well.

There isn't any intrinsically bad about capturing a moment that is 100% OK to witness as long as one does it with one's own eyes. I think anything we find objectionable about a voyeur or similar has to do with what is going on in their head. Whether there is a camera involved or not, shouldn't really matter.

QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
What he did, was create digital photo albums sorted to physical characteristics of the individuals photographed.
I wish that had been clear from the article. Thanks a lot for the clarification.

QuoteOriginally posted by zkarj Quote
There are numerous creeps who have been convicted for possessing "collections of disturbing images" and if these meet that definition, then go after him on that account. Not for taking a photo of a person or persons in a public place.
Exactly.

Perhaps this is just the media trying to get attention but I don't understand why any of the legal debate should be about photography at all.

10-15-2017, 06:58 PM   #14285
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dunedin
Posts: 394
QuoteOriginally posted by zkarj Quote
Indeed, but here's the bit that appears to override "common sense" in this situation...


If ever there was an inexact definition in law, that would be it – accepted community standards.

In my view, the fact he was taking photos should not be a technicality of the case, only that he has photos. There are numerous creeps who have been convicted for possessing "collections of disturbing images" and if these meet that definition, then go after him on that account. Not for taking a photo of a person or persons in a public place.
He was taking photos from a position of cover in a place he was not meant to be in, and despite his claims of for a travel guide the images were most definitely of the young ladies, (the article states they were teenagers) plus his conviction for similar in the past, i think he was convicted properly
10-15-2017, 08:22 PM - 1 Like   #14286
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Nelson
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 266
QuoteOriginally posted by Kiwi110Auto Quote
He was taking photos from a position of cover in a place he was not meant to be in, and despite his claims of for a travel guide the images were most definitely of the young ladies, (the article states they were teenagers) plus his conviction for similar in the past, i think he was convicted properly
The thing that's troubling many of us is not intent -there's no doubt this guy's as dodgy as they come -but the actual charge, and the conviction based on that. Hence my comment about current law being a bad fit for this type of behaviour.


The legal system is largely about precedent, and this sets a potentially major one. Would any of us be happy when engaged in some street photography, an act that by it's very nature is covert we are spotted by a vigilant member of the public who calls the police? At very best you can expect to have your camea and gear seized, forensically examined, your home searched, computers hard-drives seized, your childrens laptops etc likewise taken. This may sound like I'm being overly dramatic, but it's the very real consequence of this scenario.
10-15-2017, 09:19 PM   #14287
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Dunedin
Posts: 394
QuoteOriginally posted by Kiwigeezer Quote
The thing that's troubling many of us is not intent -there's no doubt this guy's as dodgy as they come -but the actual charge, and the conviction based on that. Hence my comment about current law being a bad fit for this type of behaviour.


The legal system is largely about precedent, and this sets a potentially major one. Would any of us be happy when engaged in some street photography, an act that by it's very nature is covert we are spotted by a vigilant member of the public who calls the police? At very best you can expect to have your camea and gear seized, forensically examined, your home searched, computers hard-drives seized, your childrens laptops etc likewise taken. This may sound like I'm being overly dramatic, but it's the very real consequence of this scenario.
I know the rare times i go and practice street photography i will always ask before i take, or if i take an image and there are people in it that are identifiable i will always endeavor to go to them and show them on camera the image, and ask if it is ok to keep and publish it, and hand them a card with the web address where they can be found. Having that little card makes a whole lot of people more than happy

10-15-2017, 09:26 PM   #14288
Pentaxian
richandfleur's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,788
Always an interesting discussion and then debate. Does being in a public place mean you lose all rights to your image?

Personally I'm not a fan of street photography at all. I find it pretty yuck, for want of a more sophisticated term.
10-15-2017, 10:56 PM   #14289
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Nelson
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 266
QuoteOriginally posted by richandfleur Quote
Always an interesting discussion and then debate. Does being in a public place mean you lose all rights to your image?

Personally I'm not a fan of street photography at all. I find it pretty yuck, for want of a more sophisticated term.
Nor I, prefer landscape and architecture. But there are those who do, and the risk is real.
10-15-2017, 11:05 PM   #14290
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
zkarj's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Wellington
Posts: 1,287
"Street photography" often sets out to take pictures of people on the street. What about these shots?


Not identifiable, so OK?


Two people almost certainly identifiable? Are either of them going to care?


One, maybe two people identifiable. One a young woman. OK? What if it had been a young man? Does the gender (heck, the sexual persuasion) of the photographer matter?


Maybe some who knew one of these people could identify them. It's much, much closer to them than any of the other shots above.


I actually know one of the identifiable people in this photograph. Creepy? If not, why not?


There was definitely at least one person on this boat, I know, because he said hello to me before disappearing. It occurred to me just now – what if he'd been in the wheelhouse and his face was visible?

This is why "taking photos of a person in a public place" is far too generic a cause for prosecution. There are infinite stops of grey between the apparent black and white of the charge.
10-15-2017, 11:36 PM   #14291
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Otago, New Zealand
Posts: 422
The guy lost an appeal in 2005 when he was charged for doing the same thing

What photographs are used for is a factor - if you want to use a photograph of a person to sell stuff then it's a major issue whether or not you have permission - not so much if you want to post holiday snapshots on facebook.

During the RWC in 2011 I photographed hundreds or thousands of people on their way to the games - the result was that precisely zero people got upset with me - I never once asked permission, and handed out very few cards to people with my details - the reason that nobody got upset was because I made myself very visible and gave them time to react to my presence, I smiled lots, talked to people in passing and on the odd occasion a person turned their head away or raised their hand I simply pointed the camera somewhere else, made it clear I'd respect their space, smiled & carried on. Zero problems

On the other hand, last year, I had a man follow me with a point & shoot camera taking photos every time I looked away and then pretending to be looking at other stuff when I looked back. After 3/4hr of that I walked back to him, jammed my camera in his face, took his photo, and told him that I'd call the cops if he didn't f*&k off - I couldn't care less about what he did with the photos, I resented the invasion of my personal space, was freaked out by being stalked for over half an hour and I considered it harassment. Was he doing anything wrong? Legally I don't know, but it was deeply intimidating.

Not the same guy incidentally - just another guy with a camera.

I strongly suspect that there is a factor or factors involved in this Nelson case which haven't been broadcast (the courts can & do suppress information in trials and pending appeals)
10-16-2017, 04:04 PM   #14292
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,391
QuoteOriginally posted by Kiwigeezer Quote
The thing that's troubling many of us is not intent -there's no doubt this guy's as dodgy as they come -but the actual charge, and the conviction based on that. Hence my comment about current law being a bad fit for this type of behaviour.


The legal system is largely about precedent, and this sets a potentially major one. Would any of us be happy when engaged in some street photography, an act that by it's very nature is covert we are spotted by a vigilant member of the public who calls the police? At very best you can expect to have your camea and gear seized, forensically examined, your home searched, computers hard-drives seized, your childrens laptops etc likewise taken. This may sound like I'm being overly dramatic, but it's the very real consequence of this scenario.
I agree. He should have been convicted for what he was doing with those images, not for taking the images in a public place in the first place. The images were not objectionable as they were of clothed individuals in a public place. In my view, the jury should not have convicted him on the charge as brought. The last thing we want is that it becomes, through legal precedent, a problem for any regular photographer to take photos in public places.
10-16-2017, 04:16 PM   #14293
Pentaxian
richandfleur's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Palmerston North, New Zealand
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,788
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
The last thing we want is that it becomes, through legal precedent, a problem for any regular photographer to take photos in public places.
Agree with this, and certainly some clarity around this would be useful.

QuoteOriginally posted by zkarj Quote
"Street photography" often sets out to take pictures of people on the street. What about these shots?
I'd consider half of those to be architecture shots, rather than street photography, so to me they are fine.
This is a personal view of course.
10-16-2017, 05:40 PM   #14294
Veteran Member
awa355's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 331
On Sunday, I went to Mystery Creek to a huge equine event. The Mounted Games assc. had regional teams competing. I finished up with 1500 images. Found the association's FB page, posted a couple and have been inundated with requests for photos. This young girl was one of the Auckland team. No one has ever questioned the photos being posted. I did ask if it was okay. Tyler now has set the pony being hugged image as her cover photo. The other girl has asked for the full size image of her getting back on her horse for her sponsors to use. I guess it comes down to how honest you present your work.

Neither of these are technically great photos but those looking just love the subjects.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-50  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-50  Photo 
10-16-2017, 11:31 PM   #14295
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,624
Great news awa !
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aperture, bit, bobd, camera, display, ear, flickr, jun, k1, k5, kiwi, lens, lenses, new zealand, nz, pentax, pentaxians, photos, pig, pm, post, results, ross, saturation, sharpness, theatre, time, weeks, whanganui, yesterday
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kiwi Newbie :) Heidi Welcomes and Introductions 15 01-13-2011 09:04 PM
Another Kiwi has landed zk-cessnaguy Welcomes and Introductions 5 11-22-2010 05:00 AM
Another G'Day from an Oz Kiwi Tonto Welcomes and Introductions 4 04-26-2010 12:44 AM
Hi From yet another Kiwi Scott NZ Welcomes and Introductions 4 06-14-2009 07:24 PM
Kiwi sharp shooter (aspirations...) K-xx-500-user Welcomes and Introductions 11 10-07-2008 09:26 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:23 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top