You can get sued for libeling the dead, actually. Whether it's successful depends on the court, claims, and the circumstances, but its happened.
You can also invade the privacy of the headless if there is clearly enough identifying info to make it clear it's a particular person.
All that aside, live-action WALL-E. I really hope our shit in this country gets fixed, because this is another example of the destructive power of the unfettered free market.
@ 3 - Yeah, but what it boils down to is whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. There's a reasonable expectation that your panties (or lack thereof) will remain private - thus the illegality of upskirt shots in many jurisdictions. But snapping a photo of someone who's just walking down the street doesn't really violate that.
I'm oversimplifying of course, I admit. But that's the basic idea.
I think the issue with cropping their heads isn't so much privacy, but the idea that they haven't released their image for publication. I guess cropping heads/blurring faces allows you to publish without getting a release signed? (I'm not too familiar with this area--can anyone tell me if I'm off base here?)
Oh man, whenever I don't feel like going to the gym in the morning, segments like this are my motivator. "You think you can slack off today? Slack off today and in 3 years you'll be a headless obese person on the news."
@1 - I'd argue the reason you mistake obesity as a free-market problem is because our response to it is socialized. Better to ban foods though than to make people responsible for themselves.
@19, I assume pic #1 is a dude only based on the size of the ring and the watch. Both look like men's accessories. If you ignore that, the big blob body shape could easily be either gender.
@18 I prefer the term "FUPA," which of course is an acronym for "Fat Upper Pussy/Penis Area." I always shudder to think of what something like that would look like without that stretched-out denim covering it... ewwwww
its only a crime for upskirt, private space etc. otherwise its not a crime but if you are publishing an identifiable person that is not a public figure you need consent or you could get sued. thats my understanding. see "photographers rights"
@26 - so, you're saying that the actual incident in Seattle Center when a perv filmed with a camera up women's skirts in a public place is NOT illegal?
What's illegal is the action. Obviously, the TV producers who film this are all chubby chasers, and they are thereby violating the law.
28- no. ? upskirt is in the law as illegal. when you say "what is illegal is the action" what do you mean? in the law it only states that upskirts, downblouse, locker rooms, etc, are illegal. shooting people in public space itself is not illegal, regardless of the motive. what you do with the footage, in this case, may matter. the law is somewhere online if you want to look it up its interesting.
at first glance i thought the top pic was a guy as well, but the comments here got me to take another look. that's totally a lady. look at the fingers and the legs. chick, man.
Has it occurred to any of you that your comments are mean and hurtful? And that, I don't know, maybe you should exercise some compassion? Or at least discretion? You know, that whole, "if you don't have anything nice to say..." bit? I know this is the internet and all, but if you can't act like decent human beings, at least act like less shitty human beings.
@16 re: @1 -- I think what he was getting at was that fattening food is cheaper and/or more available to low income people than nutritious food. See Michelle Obama's campaign: http://www.letsmove.gov/accessing/index.…
You can also invade the privacy of the headless if there is clearly enough identifying info to make it clear it's a particular person.
All that aside, live-action WALL-E. I really hope our shit in this country gets fixed, because this is another example of the destructive power of the unfettered free market.
Not on a public street mate, covered by the 1st Amendment. Totally legal, all your need is a wide angle lens to get all the fat ass in.
If you can't be identified, what's the harm?
(Not a libertarian)
http://bit.ly/aob1dK
I'm oversimplifying of course, I admit. But that's the basic idea.
I think the issue with cropping their heads isn't so much privacy, but the idea that they haven't released their image for publication. I guess cropping heads/blurring faces allows you to publish without getting a release signed? (I'm not too familiar with this area--can anyone tell me if I'm off base here?)
heh heh.
sorry.
But only in this state.
Otherwise upskirt videos would be ok.
Reminds me of a girl I knew in high school. She'd order a 1/2 pound burger, giant fries, and a Tab. She weighed about 250 lbs when she graduated.
Dude in the first photo needs a bigger watch. That makes my wrist hurt just looking at it.
I'm still not entirely sure, but the consensus seemed to be dude.
And actually the ring looks like a guy's ring.
Show me the statute that bans filming people in public space without consent.
Does not exist.
but yeah good post, headless fat people
What's illegal is the action. Obviously, the TV producers who film this are all chubby chasers, and they are thereby violating the law.
The arms and legs are suspiciously hairless as well.