Why?

[lynnstar]

A few years back a picture of a young man wearing a yellow dress looking for something in a grocery area was taken by some individual with a picture phone and pasted either on Facebook or on the news (cant remember which?). Under the picture was the word in big letters, WHY! My understanding if I am not mistaken, was that the pic was taken of this young CD (I am assuming he was a CD since he was in a yellow dress) without permission and then pasted on social media. He had no wig on, he looked just like a guy in a dress. This picture taken of him without permission seems to me to be a invasion of privacy? At least the part where it was put on social media with the caption WHY! I guess the understanding seems to be...If your a male and you want to go dressed, it dosnt matter if permission is needed to take your pic? Your wearing a womans clothing so its ok for some person to take your pic and paste it on social media for all to see! No matter where you are.

[NicoleScott]

No privacy expectation if you're out in public, especially if the identity of the subject wasn't revealed or couldn't be determined. But I'm not a lawyer.
Seems to me that the "WHY" was a statement, not a genuine inquiry. If someone wants to know why a man wears a dress, ask, or do some research.

[Taylor186]

We discussed this a few days ago. If you are in a public space (and a grocery store qualifies) then anyone can take your picture and sell it to the highest bidder and/or post it anywhere (with very few exceptions). Many, many Paparazzi and tabloid journals make a living doing just this. Have you not gone out to 'People of Walmart'? You might want to Google it.

[Georgia_Maine]

From my understanding if a person is in a public place in the US and their face is not recognizable, then its legal for use without permission. Otherwise you need a model release to use it. Famous and newsworthy people don't get this protection it seems.

[IleneD]

The question begs one of the fundamental questions of being human.
WHY do people do cruel things? Why do they act thoughtlessly? Why do some find delight in the torment or degradation of others?

[Taylor186]

In most of the USA there is no requirement for consent (e.g. model release) if you are taking photos of a person or persons in most public spaces, recognizable or not and/or a celebrity or not. A simple google search will give you much information on the reality of this.

[nonameyet1234]

I think the bigger thing here is don't overthink things you see on the internet. A quick search can produce people being critical of EVERYTHING. Just move on from stuff like that. You've got a finite time on this rock...don't waste any of that precious recourse worrying about what some anonymous person passively aggressively posts on the internet.

[NancySue]

Ilene's comments are correct, except, I believe the cruel actions of some are intentional and thoughtless to the extent of not being aware of the hurt their actions caused. It seems there are more and more judgemental people now. Political Correctness has also contributed to hypocrisy and equivocation. As much as I enjoy going out, I too fear the potential actions and reactions of the public. Violent physical actions against us are not uncommon. Everyone with an iPhone is primed to take pictures or videos of anything they don't understand. It's for these and other reasons why I've told no one, except my wife.

[Nikkilovesdresses]

The only part of it that's questionable is the 'Why!' and even that isn't really saying anything very much. Otherwise I see no difference between walking through Walmart in a dress and appearing on Fb in a dress- it's all public domain. If you can't handle it, stay happily in the closet.

[Helen_Highwater]

I think it was this time last year. I was sat in my car parked overlooking a beauty spot when 2 GG's walked by and read me. Initially they got out their smartphones and took pics of the view but then on the pretext of taking each other's photo turned the lens in my direction. So I just looked at them with the, "I know you know I'm a CD and I'm letting you know that I know that you're trying to take my photo" stare. Anyway they lost their nerve and left but had I not been as forthright in my gaze I'm sure I would have appeared in one or others FB timeline.

Goes with the turf I suppose but it does seem that many people now have little sense of what constitutes simple bad manners.

[Traci H]

As Nicole mentioned, it's all about the "Expectation of Privacy" in the US. If you are out and about in a place that does not have such, pictures of you are fair game. No model consent is required. If however one were coming to use the image in a product, advertisement, etc where there is commerce involved, then a model consent is needed, assuming the person in the photo is recognizable. ie pictures of someone doing something, but their face is not visible can be used without consent. It is however different in most other countries outside the US.

Now bear in mind, while stores allow the public inside, they are private property, different than your park, sidewalk or public beach. They can and sometimes do specifically state No Photography Allowed. That used to be a lot easier to enforce before the advent of the smartphone. Now toss a drone in the mix and the law is still being defined!

[Beverley Sims]

For me the why? is.

A male wearing a dress to make some political statement.

If you are in a public place be expected to be photographed any time.

If it makes social media, it means ,you're famous..... :-)

And somebody does care. :-)

[Pat]

Seems kind of naive to me. We're all here on the internet, are you saying you've never seen anything like this before? People take pictures of girls in bathing suits and post them to the internet. They take pictures of folks in too-tight clothing and post it to the internet. They take pictures of dogs, of road signs, odd-looking clouds, etc. and post them. There's nothing special about having taken a picture of some guy in a dress and posting it. Adding a caption means nothing. Probably the caption wasn't even added by the person who took the photo -- these things go through iterations. I'm interested about why this one image out of all others bothers you. I think you must have been reacting to more than just the photo rights issue...

[ClosetED]

As all agree, you go out in public and you can get your picture taken and posted. The bright side may be the poster asking WHY? rather than FREAK or YUCK!
Hugs, Ellen

[Allisa]

If they take my picture the caption is going to be "what the?" then they'll have to reset their camera settings if not buy a new one or the phone camera will catch fire from this mug.

[CynthiaD]

Every Halloween I have several strangers take my picture with their kids. (Me en femme of course.) I see nothing wrong with that. As for the WHY? (Speaking to the person asking the question) hey, dresses are about a hundred times more comfortable than pants, so WHY are you wearing pants?

[Krisi]

The expectation of privacy in public is unrealistic. This has been discussed here many times. Learn to live with it, it's not going away.

[dolovewell]

No - in public you do not have the expectation of privacy and any photos taken will fall under the 1st amendment umbrella

At the same time I just don't understand why anyone would present male but wear a dress. It will come across as creepy to most and make actual crossdressers look bad, by instilling negative attitudes toward CDs in the minds of the onlookers. I admit I am not a fan of wearing obvious female clothes but presenting male.

[brenda girl]

This is why I do not go out in public

[Majella St Gerard]

Privacy does not exist in public and someone wearing a dress but presenting as male does not make CD's look bad, only bad behavior does. I used to go out all the time dressed femm with no wig as a man in a dress and got only compliments and questions.

[Tracii G]

I have to ask was this you in the yellow dress?
And are you seeking legal help because you think you have been outed?

[Kate Simmons]

The problem I see is that nowadays cameras are everywhere. If we go out dressed we expose ourselves to, well, being "exposed". There basically is no "privacy" in today's high tech world. If you go after someone for posting something like that, you need a reason to sue them for defamation of character or whatever. Either way if the Media gets hold of it you end up being "exposed" anyway. Plus it can get costly after awhile to prove the point. :)

[Krisi]

If you are out in public doing something you are not proud of, you are already displaying this to anyone who is watching. What difference does a photo make?

[abby054]

If there is really anything that could be done to prevent or restrict use of photos taken in a public space, many celebrities would have taken such actions against the paparazzi long ago. Celebrities have the money and the resolve to act. Shaming the excesses with a glance or a word is probably all we can do, so grin and bear it, my friends.

Security cameras will continue to proliferate. There is little anyone can do about that. I learned the true solution to all this in the Army: the most effective concealment is not hiding. It is making my appearance so ordinary that no one notices. Hiding in plain view, if you will. Few of us can do this alone, so our true solution will take time and good taste: making our appearances in public so legion and common as to become ordinary, everyday events.

[Stephanie47]

If anyone is really interested I recommend researching your state laws. In response to cell phone usage of "up skirting" women Washington State and others have made that practice illegal. Usually the term "sexual gratification" is in the law. Also, there is reference made to "expectation of privacy." In many states taking a picture on the street is protected because there is no expectation of privacy in a public place. However, take the same picture in a restroom and it may be a violation of law because there is an expectation of privacy in a restroom. In the Greater Seattle area there was an uproar of a man taking pictures of young girls at play, but, nothing could be done about it other than to post his pictures all over the Internet too.

As far a recording a voice in Washington State it is illegal to record another person's voice without their approval. There is an expectation of privacy for that, but, if you want to rant and rave in public forget it. That's OK to record.

[Krisi]

I think it's important to keep in mind that just because there may be a law against something, that doesn't mean people won't do it. There's an all too common thought among some people that "it's not illegal if you don't get caught."