Hey leggingspy,
I can’t wait to see your face in the paper you fucking pervert. Stalking women and filming them is just sad and pathetic.
Here’s my theory about perverts like you: either you have a dick the size of a peanut, you can’t get it up/satisfy a women or your mother is a whore – why else would you clearly hate women and feel the need to exploit them. FUCK YOU!!!!—Pissed Off
This article appears in Nov 4-10, 2010.
Yup, we’ve got leggingspy, the sleepwatcher and a sexual assault on Robie St on the weekend. Watch your backs ladies, it’s fucking creepsville out there.
A face in the paper would be nice.
His nether region isn’t the issue. It’s that images of unknowing women’s underwear get him off more than actual sexual contact. Probably not a huge fan of women in either.
He’d be just as easy to catch as the sleep watcher, with female ‘bait’. I wish someone would try. Or the police, that might also be helpful..
Sounds like someone needs to have his dick and eyeballs stapled to the floor. Sick fuck.
some people just need a hobby o.p., i guess this creep has fond one he or she likes so much.
Out of curiosity i typed “leggings spy” into Youtube only to find out that his account was closed. But i was shocked,..absolutely shocked to see how many videos are on YouTube of guys following woman around and secretly taping them. I had no idea so many guys were into this. Try it yourself and prepare to be blown away.
The responses to these stories in the media and on the internet remind me of a scene in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ where a group of brainwashed women are incited by the leaders to brutally beat and kill a man who is accused of raping a pregnant woman.
Degrading his mother is not the way to go. Nor is degrading sex workers. Watch that your hate for him does not translate into hate for women as well. AND, Halifax has the highest rates of sexual assault per capita in Canada and one of the lowest report/charge/convictions rate. We have one FUlltime sexual assault Centre for all of NS. What do you expect? It’s a haven for sex offenders. Check out Avalon Sexual Assault Centre’s website. Lobby your MLA. Put women and their saftey/needs on the political/economic/ideological agenda. Don’t get mad, get mobolized.
Any statistics to back up your claim are you just talking out of your ass?
Even if this person is caught (whether male or female), the Courts will let the VideoStalker off because of their mental condition.
When someone is found unfit to stand trial, they aren’t set free. They’re committed to a mental institution until such a time as they are found fit to stand trial (if that ever happens).
As the old Doors song goes – people are strange.
I don’t think he’s a sick fuck….
I mean it’s a dude trying to get a peek at the goods.
If this were caveman times, he’d club her over the head and drag her back to his cave for a go.
he’s just satisfying his curiosity in a completely inappropriate manner.
The paper even stated their still trying to find out if he technically broke any laws.
point being, watch out for yourself, there are fucktards among us.
The guy will get a slap on the wrist…he’s not showing anything that you can’t see walking through that campus all day…he’s just exploiting it. It’s wrong for sure…but he’s not going to be in too much trouble….he’ll never get a date in this city again though.
That’s if it’s even a crime. The police themselves are not so sure.
Anyone else think it was a girl doing the filming? Or should we just hate on men until we know?
You know, I was thinking about this … and agree with zzz. It is inappropriate to film it, but he’d be seeing it anyway. If someone is filming my covered bum, then … who cares. Now the up skirt stuff … not too keen on that :
Oh gosh ‘blownaway’ … I typed in Hunter wellingtons in the youtube search, cause I wanted new rain boots. Wanted to check out prices/colours/just see someone displaying the damn thing. You know what I got, fetish material. Some girl in a bath tub with the boots on, letting water flow into them. Little ole naive me was going to type something to the effect of “Why would you wet the inside of the boots!?” … only to be met with lewd comments. Another was devoted to filming women in Birkenstocks … … …
Shoes are pretty tame compared to like filming body parts, but it’s just incredible what ppl can post.
THANK YOU BALLS …. I haven’t gone looking for the videos because I just don’t need to see em, but until it’s proven this was done by a man maybe the man haters can stop the man bashing, losers come in all shapes and forms, just this week an 18 year old female university student was arrested for murdering her ex in Halifax. This could easily be a catty way to make fun of people’s stupid fashion choices.
He’s not breaking any laws.
Might be creepy as hell, and a violation of your personal space, but it’s legal.
“Anyone else think it was a girl doing the filming?” Right. It could be a well-trained monkey too, or maybe just a leprechaun, innocently searching for his pot of gold. I’d say the odds are similar.
Balls, no one is hating on men, they’re hating on an individual who exploited women. It’s not a revelation that the majority of those who exploit women sexually are men. I don’t think anyone attempted to infer that this in any way means that the majority of men are perverts who exploit women. You seem to have no problem calling out so-called feminists for being “too sensitive” but look at you getting all defensive over something that’s not even relevant to you or your gender specifically.
Hey Donk – Pygmy Sperm or Pilot whale?
Pervs suck ass – frequently
Oh me0w,
Making assumptions based on your discontent. I merely asked two questions. Not all that defensive is it? Or are you just not thinking, blinded by something perhaps?
See I did some due diligence which caused me to ask those questions. There is a comment on the cbc from someone who has viewed the videos before they were removed. It can be found here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story… posted at 3:47 pm around page 6.
Can you refrain from posting when the tide is in?
Right on me0w. Debating over whether it’s a man or woman is stupid anyway. It’s a man. Get over it. Call me a man hater all you want, it won’t change the fact that people behind these kind of offenses are pretty much always men. Recognizing this isn’t hating on men it’s just being realistic. Sorry, one account on an anonymous forum claiming it to be a woman doesn’t change or outweigh centuries of crime statistics.
Whether it’s a man or woman filming shouldn’t make a difference anyway. People were filmed without their permission and put up on the internet for sexual purposes, purposes that were made explicitly clear by the titles of the videos. Some of the videos were up-skirt shots. In what universe is secretly zooming up a strangers skirt with a concealed camera not an invasion of privacy? Let alone posting it online for public viewing with the title “Slutty College Girl”.
So it’s not an invasion of privacy because some of the videos are just leggings? We’re supposed to be okay with this guy because he wasn’t always lucky enough to find a girl in a skirt to follow up a flight of stairs? BULL.
Oh blah, blah, Balls. Yes, what a silly little woman I am for holding you to the same standards you hold me to. How foolish I must be to think that the same rules apply to both of us. And yes, of course, I must be overreacting because I’m having my period. You’re nothing if not predictable in your responses. *Yawn*
Since when is due diligence reading hearsay in the comments section of a web publication? The comments section is closed now, btw, so your ‘evidence’ is lost forever. How tragic.
Oh and to all the people who are crying “But it could be legal!” Even if it IS legal, that doesn’t mean it’s okay. Technology changes faster than laws, the confusion over whether or not it’s legal is just the result of the gap between the two not a reflection of actual morality.
Leggingspy is probably someone with a spanking fetish. Sound like anyone we know?
What is interesting is that everyday we are caught on cameras in stores, ATM areas, just about everywhere really – so whether its our faces, our asses, or our chests on camera, does it REALLY matter? And no one seems to complain about invasion of privacy in the everyday do they? So, for example, your local super grocery store can get away with filming your ass but this person cannot? Oh I know, someone will say the store isn’t putting your ass on the internet…but do you really know who is looking and for what reason?
Try reloading the linked page me0w, silly girl. The comments are still there you just can’t post new ones!
I didn’t say it was evidence, just lead to questions.
So you are having your period?
I agree snoop the possible up-skirt videos are over the line, so we might find out who’s right yet. As for the other videos they maybe no worst than people of W-M(IMO). One’s for laughs and the other for beauty.
It’s a smiling whale King Ivan 😀
Chappy, there’s flaws in your logic. First off, security cameras are not equal to some scumbag following girls around surreptitiously with a hidden camera. We pretty much all know that we’re being filmed in stores, buildings and some streets. The difference is, security cameras are not zooming in our asses, or looking up skirts, they’re pretty much all overhead, so at most, you might get some cleavage. Thing is, we know they’re there.
As for not knowing who is looking and for what reason, yeah, there probably are some pervs using security footage for their own gain, this jerk we’re hearing about is not an isolated case, but it still comes down to we put some trust in the security footage, because we know we’re being filmed, hopefully, the business that set up the cameras has done some background checks before letting anyone view what’s on there.
The other flaw in your reasoning, is intent. Although, a business may not realize they’ve hired someone who is taking footage and posting it to the net, the business’s intent is to have on video any theft or other criminal activity, should the need arise to prove said activity. But, the leggingspy’s intent is solely a sexual one, that is invasive and demeaning and just morally wrong, even if it’s not criminally wrong.
FYI: leggingspy is a 23 yr male. that what his utube account said before he shut it down. I saw it with my own eyes. the guys a pervert with no respect for women. Alot of his videos had the word slut in the title. btw up the skirt shots are consider voyeurism and it is a criminal offence. throw the book at the fucker. NS need to make exsample of this guy….. there is far too many men in Halifax demostrating sexual predatory behaviour. ie sleep watcher, last years flasher, leggingspy and creepy guy on robie touching women walking by themselves.
Seems like Haliwood is a sexually frustrated city. Lolz.
I saw some of the footage in question on CBS news and I laughed when the perv zoomed in on this lady’s pants full of lint. If that gets the perv off, the perv has one hell of an issue.
I guess it’s a matter of degree. Security cameras are one thing, but once the anonymity is gone by up-loading pics to te net…well.
Is that where the invasion of privacy begins? Or are we being thin skined?
The up-skirt definately a no-no, if by chance the girl isn’t 17 yet – kiddy porn.
By the way, if I were to be taking photos of individuals in a crowd, I’d try to ask.
OK, who let LS out of the basement. LOL.
I think LS would just ask directly if the women would like to follow him to his bedroom instead of filming their linty leggings.
Balls, I went back and read the comment, but it’s still irrelevant. People claim all kinds of things on the internet and love to personally align themselves with noteworthy events, but at the end of the day, it’s just hearsay.
And yes, of course, being a feminist and all, I’ve actually conditioned myself to menstruate 365 days a year. I perform blood rituals in the wilderness with my fellow womyn in praise of the goddess and when I go out in public, I fly my maxi pads as flags to signify my allegiance to the League of Crazy Feminist Bitches Who Piss Off Basement Dwelling Internet Dudes.
As an aside, anyone else find it contradictory that these videos are widely viewed as an invasion of privacy and humiliating for the women being filmed, but it’s somehow perfectly acceptable for the news outlets to keep these videos and images in circulation for all the public to see?
Yes
YES!
and
Yes. to your post, me0w. 🙂
“FYI: leggingspy is a 23 yr male.” Dammit!
@me0w-So what now? Do you want an apology from me for asking questions, or a box of maxi pads for possibly being right? I agree it’s hearsay, I never said it was fact, you crazy.
It’s humiliating for women to be seen in the attire they choose to wear in public? I disagree it’s humiliating to have upskirt video taken, which the news does not show.
I think you missed an apostrophe there balls.
I disagree it’s humiliating – or – I disagree, it’s humiliating
HG. Yup. The latter with the comma. It is humiliating to have upskirt video unwillingly taken.
Cheers, notsoNTH 🙂
An assurance that you won’t continue to make absurd conjecture or ridiculous claims of man-bashing would be nice, Balls, but I know it’s not likely. Besides, if that were to happen, who would I argue with when I’m procrastinating about getting work done?
And yes, I believe it is humiliating to have a close up of your ass shot by some perv and then titled along the lines of “Slutty College Girl” and put out there for all the world to see. I know it’s probably a stretch for you, but try to imagine that one of these women is someone that you care about, and then ask yourself how you’d feel about seeing the offending images plastered all over the TV and newspapers for people to gawk at.
I am generally mortified by images of myself in any attire, so I can only imagine how horrible it must have been for the women on those videos.
You do know who Annie is right HP? She’s Norwegian and sings the sweetest, most sugary pop around. Personal favs, ‘Greatest Hit’ & ‘I Know Your Girlfriend Hates Me’.
Unless of course it’s some allusion to some other stuff and things, whatever … as I don’t think it’s quite your speed.
:|
Kind of a girl-next-door version of Kylie Minogue? 😀
You will have to be able to distinguish between a question and a statement, me0w. NTH isn’t helping your manipulations. You’re good at manipulations you can argue with anyone! But it’s ok to like me, I don’t mind.
Mixed feelings on that last situation. I don’t wear revelling clothing, haven’t seen the videos or titles. By the pic in the news I don’t think they have much to be humiliated about. But i can imagine why you wouldn’t want a pic taken of your ass. You shouldn’t worry, unless you shop at w-m.
Ok ok hugs, kisses, gtg.
“You will have to be able to distinguish between a question and a statement, me0w.” But I’m a woman! These things are so above my head. And truly, however can I be expected to correctly interpret the meaning behind your oh-so complex pointedly asked questions?
“NTH isn’t helping your manipulations. You’re good at manipulations you can argue with anyone!” Of course, women, and especially feminists, are greatly experienced at manipulation. We live to try and complicate the lives of men with our silly issues and demands for fairness.
“By the pic in the news I don’t think they have much to be humiliated about.” Thank goodness! In your infinite wisdom as a man, you have saved these women from having to determine for themselves how they feel about being filmed without their consent and having the imagery go viral.
“But it’s ok to like me, I don’t mind.” Oh, don’t go getting ahead of yourself there. Just because arguing with you seems like a suitable way to distract myself doesn’t mean that I actually like you. At least no more than a cat likes a barely-alive mouse that she half-heartedly bats across the kitchen floor, anyway.
Kylie Minogue dang I’d like to do her 3 ways…..I mean she’s a talented vocalist 🙂
I think the over-reaction to this is ridiculous.
It’s really funny that in the Metro a female student at Dalhousie was complaining about this person and that he (or she or whatever) may have filmed her. And then she had a picture of her face and her name in the newspaper. Ironic.
It’s a really silly situation to get all riled up about. It’s always amusing to watch the anger and angst even a whiff of sexual crimes get. I think really, that people get their jollies off reading about these crimes.
Yeah. Sex crimes. Hilarious.
I’m not sure how that situation of the student being interviewed is ironic. There’s a major difference between the two circumstances: consent. The student knew that her photo was taken and consented to having it published. The women in the videos were not aware they were being filmed, and did not consent to having those videos published online. Not to mention, the student was portrayed in the context of giving her opinion on an issue she was affected by, rather than being objectified and called a slut.
tisn’t i, but i do love to look at a nice butt on a female. fuck people, i’m still human you know. and as to the comment about me being let out of the basement, nah, i live ob the top floor of my building.and as to the direct approach, ys, that would work for me, hmmmmm, any takers, i’ll make you a movie starlette.
I’m just glad that I turned out normal….thanks mom and dad
meow, this isn’t a sex crime. That’s why it’s funny. People think it’s a sex crime but it’s not a sex crime. Get a whiff of any kind of sexual impropriety and we’ve got a major sex scandal on our hands.
Plus, look at the recent Russell Williams case, a real sex crime. Endless news stories about him as a “sex slayer” on Google. And the very bottom story “Does the Public Know Too Much About Williams?” The only reason people know so damned much is because the media keep plastering it everywhere. There’s a major difference between learning about the case happening and learning about what happened in the case.
I didn’t say it was a sex crime, Pav. I was responding to your assertion that “It’s always amusing to watch the anger and angst even a whiff of sexual crimes get”. I think people are justified in being angry and upset over sex crimes, or even “lesser” forms of violation such as this leggings creep business. How the media handles them is a whole other kettle of fish, however, as I touched on in a previous post.
Knowing that there’s some guy walking around secretly filming girls my age and posting the videos on the internet for other people to masturbate to isn’t very funny to me. It’s scary.
Voyeurism his is how many violent sexual predators start out after all. I’m not saying that all guys who do this are going to become violent sexual predators or even that this guy will become one, just that most rapists and sex murderers start honing their skills by secretly watching, stalking, and yes, filming/taking pictures of women just like this guy is doing. Same with watching women sleep, same with stealing their underwear. No you’re not actually touching the women, and you certainly aren’t violently raping and murdering them, but are you exhibiting the early behavior of many serial rapist murderous? Yes. That’s why this sort of thing is fucking scary to women and that’s why it’s not funny.
“Even if it IS legal, that doesn’t mean it’s okay”
A – it is legal
B – it is ok
A -> !B
using the equivalent contra-positive we find
!!B -> !A
or simply
B -> !A
so you’ve actually stated that it is ok if it isn’t legal.
I don’t think that’s the route you want to travel.
I for one am shocked and appalled that Nova Scotia’s infamous “Scalping Law” is still on the books. Outrageous!. It may have had it’s place when Edward Cornwallis wanted to see the Stones in their heyday, but to buy up tickets for entertainment and sporting events and then resell them at inflated prices, in this day and age? For shame, Nova Scotia. For shame. >: (
snoop, thank you for your excellent example of a slippery slope argument!
It’s scary because this dude might decide one day to rape and kill me/another woman! Because I think he might do this one day, he probably will! Since he probably will do this one day, let’s convict him now and send him to jail! Problem solved! Now I can be safe and happy until the next whiff of sexual impropriety gets my panicky jollies going again!
My point, meow, is that people are not really upset nor angry about this, or many sex crimes. They want to get their fucking jollies reading about this stuff. The second we see a hint of a sex crime, or precieved sex crime, we suddenly become a ravenous mob ready to tar and feather the alleged offender, no matter if they are guilty or not. That’s why these types of accusations haunt an innocent person accused of them for the rest of their lives. Because people in general are fucking perverts and get their fucking jollies reading about this stuff. Blame the media all you want, but I bet you’re first in line to read up on this story and all the other heinous sex crimes.
say ‘jollies’ a few more times to really drive it home
I do rather like the word.
It also strikes me that this entire affair stinks of ‘White Woman Syndrome’. These women are probably mostly made up of white, fairly affluent women going to a high-end university. That makes it even more titillating (I can expand my jolly dictionary).
There is a man in Dartmouth accused of killing two sex workers. The story barely made the front page of the newspaper and no one is talking about it around here (of course, I admittedly can’t be bothered to read every single thread thoroughly).
“high-end university” lol
The pun did escape me until you pointed it out. Completely unintentional, I assure you.
Hahahah the pun escaped me too … I just meant to laugh at Dal.
That is one happy whale. >: )
Under federal Law, The Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms
You are guaranteed the right to take pictures & publish them.
You are guaranteed the right to express yourself through photography & you have the right to publish the photos you take. Unless you have been arrested, you have the right to take pictures of anything you want.
No interference from police
The police cannot interfer with your lawful enjoyment of property (aka your camera) they cannot detain you, without legal reason.
HOWEVER
There is the right of ‘Reasonable Expectation of Privacy” Which means if you are in your own home, for example. quote from criminal voyeurism part of the act- ” You cannot take pictures of people who are in circumstances where they believe they have a reasonable expectation of privacy,for example, a bathroom. This generally extends to a person inside their own home or anywhere one would reasonable consider a private place…” your friends home for example
You also don’t have the right to trespass & if you do trespass, you do not automatically lose any photograph you may have taken.
There are also some places where you will see no photography signs or be informed that you cannot take photo’s, by say the owner or an employee, say a security guard or policeman…that doesn’t give them the right to seize your camera or film, they inform you you have to leave, you leave or you can then be arrested for trespassing & your dealing with a whole new basket of fish !
There are different laws about taking photo’s of minors & publishing them. As well as someone taking your photo in public & then using that to endorse a product for example would give you grounds to sue them, because they are using your image for something you haven’t agreed with, which is different than simply taking the photo & keeping it or publishing it say under a title ‘linty butts’
So ladies if you are simply out & about in public, walking around & someone takes a photo of your linty ass…There is sweet fuck all you can do about it, legally ! Unless of course they use you as an example to why people should buy their ‘lint removal product’ !
Does this “right” extend to public places where an up-skirt shot is taken? If it does, I’m very disturbed at the “rights” voyeurs have.
I don’t think anyone’s talking about upskirt photos. That’s a violation of privacy because your ass is a private part of your body and generally, you’re required to cover it (somewhat) in public. I think people are talking about covered asses that are in plain view to the human eye from a distance. I don’t think it’s any different than showing fat people from the neck down on the news while doing a story on fattness. I really don’t think the cops’ll find anything to charge this guy with because it’s all legal.
What I said stands, Yes that is exactly the reason why women are freaked out by this guy. I never said it was a reason to lock him in jail (please don’t put words in my mouth) or that he was going to rape and murder someday. I thought I made that clear by specifically stating it, but apparently not.
I was at an IKEA in T.O and they have a big kids play area where you pretty much check your kid in and they give you a pager…lol…seriously. And this dad was trying to take pictures of his daughter heading into the play area where the other kids were and the employee stopped him because there was other kids in there. He threw such a fit…I wanted to punch him in the face.
Also do you ever notice when the news is doing stories on overweight people and they go get a bunch of footage around town of unhealthy people from the neck down for B-roll. If that’s ok to exploit then like that why isn’t it ok to put covered asses on YouTube?
I totally agree that the looking up the skirt thing is wrong! but that’s all the dude can get in trouble for isn’t it?
Pretty much, yeah.
While I am not trying to defend bad taste or any persons taste in comparison to my own as being right or wrong. I can’t find anything in the federal statues or in the criminal code that forbids it.
The wording for Voyeurism Section 162 under the criminal code, makes the same claims that it is only illegal when done where a person expects a ” reasonable expectation of privacy”
Walking around the public areas of Halifax , simply in the context which we all know are Pulic area’s….your ‘right to reasonable privacy’ is suspended by simply being in public. But Dalhousie, for example could make it a rule of photgraphy by permission only, because they are a private facility, on their premises, but on the public sidewalks are still ‘public places’ where you should not expect reasonable privacy …for example , say the SUB & then a person taking any type of photographs, could be confronted & told to stop taking photo’s or leave.
The federal stautes are pretty dry reading & I haven’t had the time to go through the Provincial ones etc. As I’ve previously mentioned the laws are different for children(minors) & if the photo identify’s you and is being used for a marketing purpose . Otherwise we’re all fair game.
That’s what I commented on twice, RC. If they can put random fat people on the news just milling around town, why is it SOOOO awful to post tape of people’s covered asses?
There seems to be some grey areas that need to be addressed in those “rights”. I don’t have any issue with cctv security cameras in public places as long as I know they’re there, and there are times when people are going to get in a picture they don’t know you’re taking, if it’s a public space. But, I do think that when pictures or videos such as those taken by leggingspy are take with the intent he had, there should be some rules against it. Not necessarily laws, but a victim of this kind of thing should have some sort of recourse if they don’t want closeups of their asses posted on the web. It just seems to be a violation of sorts.
I really don’t see what the big deal is as long as the videos aren’t upskirt videos. It’s an ass — we all have one and we can all see each others’ clothes asses whenever we go out and we’re all on CCTV wherever we go so who cares. If someone wants to video tape my covered ass and whack off to it, I can’t exactly stop them. You can take a mental picture of someone in your mind and jack off to that too — does that make everyone who thinks of someone when they’re masturbating immoral and violating the rights of others?
TDF…then when does it stop ?
For example I personally believe there needs to be scales & a height chart …or a cut out you have to be able to pass through without touching the sides, before you can legally buy lycra or other stretchy spandex like material !
I’ve seen some people women particularly, that if the lycra pants they’re wearing let go, someones going to lose an eye at the very least & the fact of how horrible they look think “my eyes are bleeding help” or 20 lbs of shit in a 10 pound bag ! !
I degress, there is no ‘law’ for that. Even if I feel there should be.
Because we are suppose to cover our genitalia in public, when you are out in public a photo from any angle reguardless of your, my or someone elses personal feelings about it. is considered by the law to be a public photo & it is legal for the photographer to take, it just may not be in the best taste. but bad taste isn’t against the law.
Good question. Answer- I don’t know. I suppose it’s just each person has their own belief of what is and isn’t acceptable and there is no way to regulate that.
I tried to envision how I’d feel if I found these kinds of pics of me online, and I know I’d be emabarrassed at the very least, not just because of the picture, but because of the captions that went with them. Very degrading. Also, the feeling of realizing that someone took this shot without my knowledge would make me feel creeped out and a self conscious. It’d probably be awhile before I stopped looking around me whenever I was out, to see if it was happening again. So, not a legal violation, but definitely a moral one, and we all have different standards of morals.
Taking pictures in public can result in random strangers appearing in the shot. Fair enough. We’ve all got pictures like that. Specifically targeting someone without their consent as a subject for a photo and/or using those images without consent can land you in a whole lot of trouble should the person being targeted take offense or otherwise object. I hope this creep is caught and shamed!
I hear you TDF
I was on a film shoot this summer & a stills photographer, hired to do stills of the Actors by the Production Company took it apon themselves to take photo’s of the Crew while they were working. Many were not very flattering, people all sweaty, hair in their faces, mouths open while talking but there was nothing obscene about any of them.
But some people weren’t pleased with the photo’s & the photographer gave anyone who wanted the pictures of themselves directly to them, to do with as they wished & guaranteed none would be in the publicity photo’s of the film…which is a good thing, because just because a Production Company says in their deal memo ,that they can take your image & use it in perpetuity blah, blah blah, you can circle that item, tell them you do not agree & that you expect to compensated for any use f your image by the Production as per say ACTRA Standards of compensation … & that is your right.
I myself never viewed the photo’s in question of the females posted, nor am I going to go & look to see if any are still available to see, but did the photographer identify anyone by name ?
If they were just being an asshole & giving their opinion on anothers body type, or dress style with unflattering photo’s , that itself isn’t illegal, might be creepy or morally wrong, but that is a personal opinion which you expect to be allowed to have & the photographer should be allowed his as well (not going to get in the he or she argument I read above…it really doesn’t matter, in the context of the action we’re talking about)
I don’t see this as a ‘grey’ area under the law. I really don’t believe bad taste should be against the law..but what the fuck do I know ??? Because I do believe marijuana laws are archaic & wrong, but they are still in place & a great many misinformed people agree with them !!
Oceanchick, I’ve already quoted the law…what are you talking about ?
In Public under the Law of Canada & the Charter of rights & freedms we have as Canadians…we can photograph what we like in public & we have the right to publish those photographs…there are some conditions, but this particular person doesn’t seem to have broken any of those.
What you have now is photo’s of In Your Opinion, bad taste. You & others mention/agree its creepy & Many would agree with you, but that isn’t against any law either.
If the police use their powers of search & seizure, to find this person, who hasn’t broken a law…they would be the ones in trouble for breaking the laws, that deal with when they (the police) have the right to search & seize anything.
Because the police do at times have the right to photograph & record you even in your own home or bathroom etc !
There is a site dedicated to this sort of thing…it’s one of those spin-offs from People of Walmart…it’s called ” girls in yoga pants ” and it’s kinda creepy, but it seems most of the pics are taken and sent in by the same girl. I didn’t really stick around to look at all of them though :P. So all of you weirdos out there with the need to take pictures of girls bums covered in a small layer of stretchy fabric, go there instead! I’m sure the “rush” won’t be there though.
And how many of these students (or others) go to the beach wearing string bikinis or go downtown and wear next to nothing? How many people go home and masturbate about either people they know or just met or seen?
Just one other thing. If they are pictures of asses, how the hell does anyone know who the asses belongs to unless one is looking back at the same time.
Creepy – yes, illegal – no.
Oooh….I just opened another can of worms. All those pics on People of Walmart are taken unknowingly and put on the internet for all to see and laugh at…but I don’t think anyone has a big beef with that. Or maybe they do, I dunno. But I enjoy POW and was going towards saying leggingspy is a douche but I guess I can’t really have such a double standard! This guy is a creep, but I don’t think anything is going to really happen to him.
except for previously said ‘date material’ vanishing….
he’s gonna need all those pics now.
Legal or not, it is creepy and if I saw someone doing it I would be offended. People posting the POW pictures aren’t doing it for perverted sexual purposes. ….or are they…? /gasp
It’s only offensive because it’s pretty, young, and (generally) white women.
Some people around here need to come to grips with that.
It’s not offensive when it’s an ugly fat minority female wearing skimpy clothing on People of Wal-Mart.
The hysteria and mob mentality over this is still hilarious.
The linty bum I saw I thought was of a black woman and I couldn’t tell if she was pretty or young.
Donk. I checked out Annie, you’re right, not my thing. Molly Johnson on the other hand can bellow. Annie is a reference to someone with a fixation on RC & pg, and mother to ‘Annies’ Kids’
I see that everthing I was going to say has been said, and then some.