Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

hickey · Nov 30, 2005, 10:18 PM

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vn.../438d5a725d606

I feel bad for the kid who took the picture, hes getting in a lot of trouble while the couple doesnt get in any trouble.

"If somebody chooses to make a public spectacle of themselves then they get what goes with that."

What are your thoughts?

Ghoser777 · Nov 30, 2005, 10:25 PM

Anyone got the picture of the friends busting in on a buddy having sex because he forgot to lock the door?

rickey939 · Nov 30, 2005, 10:25 PM

I'm all hot & bothered over this.

Salty · Nov 30, 2005, 10:31 PM

That's stupid. Why aren't the couple having sex in front of the open window getting some sort of sanction?

ReggieX · Nov 30, 2005, 10:32 PM

The students in the picture are fools for having sex in the window of a dorm room, and the kid who put the pics on a web site is more of an idiot. I love that he thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

gururafiki · Nov 30, 2005, 10:40 PM

This is a prime example of why a glass house would not work.

Tomchu · Nov 30, 2005, 10:55 PM

If you ask any professional photographer, he or she will tell you very clearly that any public showing/event is free game. If you go out in public, and I snap a photo, and you appear in that photo -- tough luck, it's still my photo and I can do anything I like with it.

If these two were having sex in front of a huge window, in full view of the world, they were free game. I don't understand how this is sexual harassment -- it's not like it was a voyeur shot.

hickey · Nov 30, 2005, 10:57 PM

I can imagine them thinking "lets do it in front of the window so people can see us. Oh how naughty!" Then their plan came back to bite them in the ass.

Cubeoid · Nov 30, 2005, 11:03 PM

yea.. silly teens.

Rolling Bones · Nov 30, 2005, 11:14 PM

Wish he had a telescopic lens.

tooki · Nov 30, 2005, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by ReggieX

The students in the picture are fools for having sex in the window of a dorm room, and the kid who put the pics on a web site is more of an idiot. I love that he thinks he didn't do anything wrong.

He didn't do anything wrong. You can take pictures of people in public, and standing in a large plate-glass window certainly counts as "public".

tooki

Cadaver · Nov 30, 2005, 11:21 PM

Sounds like this kid has a lot of precedent supporting him if he wants to fight it.

himself · Nov 30, 2005, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by tooki

He didn't do anything wrong. You can take pictures of people in public, and standing in a large plate-glass window certainly counts as "public".

tooki

yeah, he did nothing wrong by taking the picture, but posting it on the web and and claiming no responsibility for that action is dubious.

Bad Poetry · 11:59 PM

Pressed Ham on the Glass
The Photographer Got Screwed
Poor Budding Hefner

SirCastor · Dec 1, 2005, 02:59 AM

There is some amount of liable protection for people in the public. I don't think it applies in this case, but if a person takes a picture of you in public and uses it without your permission you do have some amount of room to seek damages.

For instance, if you were shot in a Documentary where your face was visible, and the Documentary portrayed you in a negative way, don't you believe you have a right to say how you are portrayed?

Again, I don't think these kids have any room to do anything, but just because you're taking pictures in public doesn't guarantee you 100% protection against anything.

Kevin · Dec 1, 2005, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Bad Poetry

Pressed Ham on the Glass
The Photographer Got Screwed
Poor Budding Hefner

Ah the pretentious poet is back!

andreas_g4 · Dec 1, 2005, 06:35 AM

The picture is so hawt. One can see every detail…

Mastrap · Dec 1, 2005, 06:38 AM

The simple fact that the media is publishing this image should tell the university something.
The couple shagging in public view were idiots (or got their kicks that way) and certainly have no right to privacy.

Kevin · Dec 1, 2005, 06:40 AM

Yeah... this is no story.

The regular news and the National Enquirer are starting to look the same folks.

Sad.

Dork. · 07:23 AM

First of all, remember that the link was to the independant student newspaper at UPenn. This is clearly not the "mainstream media". Have you ever read the personals in one of those?

I was 100% on the photographer's side right up to the point where the article said he took a picture of the whole building so that the room with the act in question could be identified. That takes it out of the context of "two anonymous people shagging in public" and is more like "Have you seen the slut in Room 83A? Who Hasn't?". There's a bit of a difference there, I think.

Still, though, the couple were pretty much asking for all this attention by making their private act very public. If they were going at it on the campus lawn, would someone be out of line shouting on the top of his lungs "Hey, that's my Ex-girlfriend, Jane Doe! I'd know that fat ass anywhere!"

Dork. · Dec 1, 2005, 07:01 AM

server burp.

hickey · Dec 1, 2005, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Dork.

I was 100% on the photographer's side right up to the point where the article said he took a picture of the whole building so that the room with the act in question could be identified.

Yeah I feel the same, that seems like where he got himself into a little bit of trouble.

wdlove · Dec 1, 2005, 02:19 PM

Not enough for concern. Can't really see anything.

Weezer · Dec 1, 2005, 02:59 PM

I saw the thread title and knew this was going to be about my school

For anyone that cares, here's a followup:

http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vn.../438eb029f035f

Weezer · Dec 1, 2005, 03:03 PM

haha:

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...l/13298682.htm

ghporter · Dec 1, 2005, 04:38 PM

I think this points up the fact that very few people pay attention to who owns servers they use, and how those owners may react to something that may embarass the server owner. Knowing this sort of thing helps keep one out of the spotlight and thus out of trouble.

cpt kangarooski · Dec 1, 2005, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by SirCastor

There is some amount of liable protection for people in the public. I don't think it applies in this case, but if a person takes a picture of you in public and uses it without your permission you do have some amount of room to seek damages.

For instance, if you were shot in a Documentary where your face was visible, and the Documentary portrayed you in a negative way, don't you believe you have a right to say how you are portrayed?

Again, I don't think these kids have any room to do anything, but just because you're taking pictures in public doesn't guarantee you 100% protection against anything.

It depends. If you're using someone's likeness to sell something, then you typically need permission. OTOH, if you're taking a picture of something newsworthy, then you don't. Your documentary example is probably one where no permission is required, so long as it's not false or misleading.