Because with the way the law is worded it's not illegal. Sadly. Because the woman is clothed and the law only specifies naked and partially clothed women.
this! "they were photographed while nude or partially nude" - which in the law was defined as exposing the breast/areola, uncovered buttocks, etc. and technically, the girls that were photographed weren't nude or partially nude. the judge goes on to more or less say the law needs to be changed to cover this, as what the guy was not in the spirit of the law.
"Should be illegal" and "actually is illegal" aren't the same thing. Law makers don't think of everything, or sometimes just word things in ways that leads to them not working the way they should.
Yeah. There was a case in Georgia recently where a guy texted a woman a picture of his dick, and texting wasn't addressed by the standing law on harassment or "indecent communications." Judge had to exonerate him too, but hopefully their state legislation will be fixing that problem too.
Law or no law, I thought that one has a reasonable expectation of privacy when out in public.
So long as you are on public property, you have no expectations of privacy. Anyone can take your picture, film you, record you.
It gets into weird areas when the photographer is on public lands and you are in private.
If you are in private areas, then you have absolute control over your image.
Not sure if sarcasm...
With very few exceptions, it's perfectly legal to photograph anything you can see from any public place. You can even photograph people on private property as long as you are on public property. It's only the commercial use of those images that is restricted.
No matter what I say about this one, the folks in anon will condemn me for it.
lol. i always forget that anon and drama exist. dgaf and just say what you want.