http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/michael-brutsch-exposed-as-the-reddits-violentacrez-the-worlds-worst-internet-troll/story-fnddckzi-1226495497037 Okay so a "creepshot" is where guys take photos of non-consenting women (although it can be males/females of males/females) however usually it is men taking photos of usually unsuspecting women but I digress. This reddit came into fire when a teacher photographed a young female student and put a photo on Creepshots. So basically the reddit got shut down when someone compiled information about various creepshot users and posted then on a tumblr http://predditors.tumblr.com/ One of the mods closed it out of fear that he would be "outed". The man responsible for the subreddit was also responsible for various other controversial ones. I would like to note that I never really go to reddit and only investigated this when I read about it. Do you feel that Creepshots are wrong. Personally I find them to be distasteful and despicable. I think they make real photographers have a harder job for one and more importantly it is a violation of human being to objectify them with the shots imo. I am glad that the reddit is gone.
Yet half the people complaining probably go home and read a magazine, look at pictures taken of celebrities and business figures without their consent, and gossip over news articles filled with more images, often a lot more inciminating that just a casual photograph. Seriously, when I walk down the street I take millions of ultra high rez moving shots of people. They're called eyes. Seriously, unless they're hiding cameras in the stalls I couldn't give a fvck.
[QUOTE="Overlord93"]Yet half the people complaining probably go home and read a magazine, look at pictures taken of celebrities and business figures without their consent, and gossip over news articles filled with more images, often a lot more inciminating that just a casual photograph. Seriously, when I walk down the street I take millions of ultra high rez moving shots of people. They're called eyes. Seriously, unless they're hiding cameras in the stalls I couldn't give a fvck. Um most people do not read celebrity gossip. There is a difference between using your eyes and actually taking a photo which lasts and sharing with the world
[QUOTE="NarcissistLoser"][QUOTE="Overlord93"]Yet half the people complaining probably go home and read a magazine, look at pictures taken of celebrities and business figures without their consent, and gossip over news articles filled with more images, often a lot more inciminating that just a casual photograph. Seriously, when I walk down the street I take millions of ultra high rez moving shots of people. They're called eyes. Seriously, unless they're hiding cameras in the stalls I couldn't give a fvck. Um most people do not read celebrity gossip. There is a difference between using your eyes and actually taking a photo which lasts and sharing with the worldWhat about when we inevitably get eye cameras? What then?
[QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="NarcissistLoser"][QUOTE="Overlord93"]Yet half the people complaining probably go home and read a magazine, look at pictures taken of celebrities and business figures without their consent, and gossip over news articles filled with more images, often a lot more inciminating that just a casual photograph. Seriously, when I walk down the street I take millions of ultra high rez moving shots of people. They're called eyes. Seriously, unless they're hiding cameras in the stalls I couldn't give a fvck. Um most people do not read celebrity gossip. There is a difference between using your eyes and actually taking a photo which lasts and sharing with the worldWhat about when we inevitably get eye cameras? What then? So you think women should be objectified further?
[QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="NarcissistLoser"][QUOTE="Overlord93"]Yet half the people complaining probably go home and read a magazine, look at pictures taken of celebrities and business figures without their consent, and gossip over news articles filled with more images, often a lot more inciminating that just a casual photograph. Seriously, when I walk down the street I take millions of ultra high rez moving shots of people. They're called eyes. Seriously, unless they're hiding cameras in the stalls I couldn't give a fvck. Um most people do not read celebrity gossip. There is a difference between using your eyes and actually taking a photo which lasts and sharing with the worldWhat about when we inevitably get eye cameras? What then? ...Wtf are you going on about?
[QUOTE="NarcissistLoser"][QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="NarcissistLoser"] Um most people do not read celebrity gossip. There is a difference between using your eyes and actually taking a photo which lasts and sharing with the worldWhat about when we inevitably get eye cameras? What then? So you think women should be objectified further? Don't hate the player.
I don't really care. If someone took a picture of me in my house or something that would be a different story, but if it's in public, then I don't really care.
Answer this. How is it ok to take picture of someone that's funny, (like people of wallmart)but it's appaling to take a picture of someone that's attractive?
I'm not saying either is right, but it's hypocritcal to be outraged about one, and passive about the other.
Taking unsuspecting pics of people and posting them without the person's permission is a foul. You not only cause potential defamation of someone's character, you are doing it in hopes of making a name for yourself. That is one of the lowest things anyone can do for self gain.
I'm against it as it's widely know photos steal your soul. It's wrong to take someone soul unless you have a contract, even the devil won't take a soul without one.
Wait...I'm confused about what "creepshots" are, exactly. So these aren't like, hidden upskirt shots or anything like that, they're simply plain old candid photographs of girls in public?
Wait...I'm confused about what "creepshots" are, exactly. So these aren't like, hidden upskirt shots or anything like that, they're simply plain old candid photographs of girls in public?MrGeezer
[QUOTE="JML897"] Sometimes they're upskirts Well that's obviously wrong and illegal. But if we're just talking about something like taking a picture of a girl walking down the street, I don't particularly see the big deal.
lol Too bad there are a bunch more subreddits that offer the same sort of material or stuff much worse.
This one just happened to get negative publicity, which forced reddit's moderators into doing some damage control. Meanwhile worse subreddits are left open.
Wait...I'm confused about what "creepshots" are, exactly. So these aren't like, hidden upskirt shots or anything like that, they're simply plain old candid photographs of girls in public?MrGeezer
If a girl has a nice body or something in the line ahead of you, and you stealthily take a pic with your iphone, it's a creepshot.
Answer this. How is it ok to take picture of someone that's funny, (like people of wallmart)but it's appaling to take a picture of someone that's attractive?
I'm not saying either is right, but it's hypocritcal to be outraged about one, and passive about the other.
Blue-Sky
This, weather it's not right or wrong is debatable but it's most certainly hypocritical. An extreme example is looking at an attractive girl but because she didn't give you consent you get in trouble for it. I don't like creep shots but it's too broad to really do anything about and it would be political correctness gone mad.
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] why? they are in public. if someone was taking pics of me (be it a girl or a gay guy), i would be flattered Not everyone is like you. Regardless, you can't go out in public and expect that photographing you is off-limits. If you catch someone photographing you without your permission, then you can certainly ask them to stop, but they're free to just keep on shooting. Having said that, this guy's main gripe seems to be that people discovered his online identity. His problem seems to be that now that people know about his "creepshots" (among other stuff he's posted online), that he's worried about losing his job. And to that I say, tough luck. He should have thought about that before taking those "creepshots" and then posting them online. People can photograph whatever they want, but they're responsible for it. If the images he's making and displaying are deliberately intended to piss people off, if he's too scared of the consequences to attach his name to his photographs and his online content, then it's a bit too late to start crying about losing his job.
I support Creepshots... and if you want a politician who will not take away your Freedom, your Liberty to take them... Vote Romney. Thats all.thenarutolover
Yeah, no. You and the GOP can go **** themselves for mistreating women.
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="t3hrubikscube"]It's gross. I have a problem with it. ghoklebutter
why? they are in public. if someone was taking pics of me (be it a girl or a gay guy), i would be flattered Not everyone is like you. *Claps*, so true.
[QUOTE="thenarutolover"]I support Creepshots... and if you want a politician who will not take away your Freedom, your Liberty to take them... Vote Romney. Thats all.silly_pants
Yeah, no. You and the GOP can go **** themselves for mistreating women. We do not mistreat women... Read your stats, married women are more likely to be Republican. We feed women, clothe them, provide them with kids, sex, etc. Just because we do not like killing fetuses which are 100% definitely considered children just like sperm does not make us dislike women. They can be very pretty sometimes.
[QUOTE="WSGRandomPerson"]First time ever hearing about "creepshots," but I think taking sexually explicit photos of someone without his/her consent is wrong.MrGeezer
I doubt they're that sexually explicit if they were taken in public.
They may not be explicit but they can still be innapropriate, like upskirt shots or pictures of the person bending over.
I remember hearing someone tell a story about how she cosplayed as Miss Marvel when she was 17 at a comic con convention. Some creep took a picture of her while she was bending over to pick something up and posted it on some weird site. If you wanna take pictures of people doing things like walking or standing thats not dirty and they are cool with it, then thats fine. But taking creepy upskirt shots or pictures of underage girls bending over is just plain weird (among other things).
They may not be explicit but they can still be innapropriate, like upskirt shots or pictures of the person bending over.
I remember hearing someone tell a story about how she cosplayed as Miss Marvel when she was 17 at a comic con convention. Some creep took a picture of her while she was bending over to pick something up and posted it on some weird site. If you wanna take pictures of people doing things like walking or standing thats not dirty and they are cool with it, then thats fine. But taking creepy upskirt shots or pictures of underage girls bending over is just plain weird (among other things).
Lucky_Krystal
Inappropriate isn't even the issue, since there's no law against being creepy. You can say that it's creepy all you like, but people have every right to take a picture of you bending over in public.
They may not be explicit but they can still be innapropriate, like upskirt shots or pictures of the person bending over.
I remember hearing someone tell a story about how she cosplayed as Miss Marvel when she was 17 at a comic con convention. Some creep took a picture of her while she was bending over to pick something up and posted it on some weird site. If you wanna take pictures of people doing things like walking or standing thats not dirty and they are cool with it, then thats fine. But taking creepy upskirt shots or pictures of underage girls bending over is just plain weird (among other things).
MrGeezer
Inappropriate isn't even the issue, since there's no law against being creepy. You can say that it's creepy all you like, but people have every right to take a picture of you bending over in public. Whether it's a right or not, doing that is not free from blame.
The whole creepshot/creeplife thing thing has been around since before this guy and will continue to be after him and i dont see the big deal. It isn't porn or upskirt shots for the most part at least. If your a female and dress and carry yourself in a respectful way there is no "creepshot" to be had really. It isn't illegal and shouldn't be.
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"] Whether it's a right or not, doing that is not free from blame. And I already addressed that. Whatever one chooses to photograph, they're responsible for it. If you ever take a photograph and then have to keep your identity secret when showing it out of fear of getting fired, then that's probably a pretty freaking good indication that you shouldn't be taking the picture. People absolutely have the right to call the dude out on his "creepshots", and that extends to his employer firing his ass once his identity has become public. But as far as the shots themselves, I'm not concerned (aside from the upskirt stuff). You go out in public in revealing clothes and then bend over in plain sight, don't start whining when someone takes a look or snaps a photo. As far as I'm concerned, that's like walking down the street in clothes that show heavy cleavage, and then complaining when you catch people staring.
Log in to comment