"Anthropology society apologizes to Ainu people over past actions"

Image and text from The Japan Times, 4/5/24.

The Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology has apologized and expressed its regret over its past research approach when dealing with the Ainu people, an indigenous group in the country.

It marks the first time that an academic society in Japan or abroad has apologized to the Ainu people, according to the Ainu Association of Hokkaido, a group of Ainu people working to promote their collective rights.

“That it has issued a sincere statement and apology is a step toward removing the distrust of academia,” a spokesperson for the association said.

The apology comes after a series of lawsuits filed in the 2010s seeking the repatriation of Ainu remains excavated for research purposes.

The society said that past mistakes resulting from the attitude that deemed research to be more important than respecting the Ainu people can never be undone. It sincerely acknowledges and regrets its past mistakes, it said.

The society also offered its apology and expressed its sense of responsibility to the Ainu people in the hope that they will lead to better communication with the group in the future.

“This statement does not arise from a selfish desire to impose something on the Ainu people. Nor is it issued to alleviate our own guilt,” Yoshinobu Ota, a member of the society's subcommittee on ethical issues related to Ainu studies, said in a news conference on Friday. “We want to use it as a starting point for communication and understanding, to learn about the questions and concerns the Ainu people continue to hold and what they want to know,” he added.

Shuji Iijima, the head of the society's ethics committee, also provided insight into the background of the apology. He said the society had been involved in various activities since 2022 to reflect introspectively on its past actions, including holding several symposiums to discuss its previous approach when conducting research into the Ainu people.

Iijima said that the committee had conducted interviews with a group of 36 Ainu people, consisting of 24 men and 12 women.

“In particular, it was mentioned that every time researchers visited, items disappeared from their homes,” he said. “Furthermore, it was noted that when researchers wanted to conduct research, they would come to consult the Ainu side, but when the Ainu people were in trouble, the researchers would not help.”

Iijima also said that the interviewees told him of unpleasant experiences in educational settings, such as the mishandling of materials they provided to classrooms.

“There were several who expressed a sense of resignation, saying that no matter how many times they spoke, researchers would not change anyway,” he said.

Ota said that examining researchers’ past involvement with the Ainu people further would be crucial for the academic society to decide on its future research approach, as researchers could face similar issues on ethics when dealing with indigenous people in other parts of the world.

It's not everyday that an anthropology academic association makes the news. This is a case of "too little, to late." It's unfortunate that anthropology doesn't make the news for all the good things...

Source: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/04/05/japan/society/anthropology-society-ainu-people/

"Japan moves to criminalize exploitative photo voyeurism"

Text from Japan Today, 5/2/23.

A bill has been submitted to an ongoing session in the Japanese Diet targeting a crackdown on people who take surreptitious photographs, a move that would make it illegal nationwide to snap voyeuristic images of a sexually exploitative nature.

While the issue is particularly serious for young athletes targeted by people engaging in "sneak photography" at fields and courts around the nation, the situation remains unresolved as proving sexual or malicious intent in photos taken of athletes competing in sporting attire is difficult.

At a symposium on April 15, lawyers working on the issue and former national volleyball team member Kana Oyama, among others, stressed the need for legislation, saying it is a "remaining issue" for sneak photography, especially for competitive athletes.

"You cannot say that just because photos are taken of someone who's clothed that it isn't a problem," said lawyer Yoji Kudo. "We shouldn't give up on legal controls simply because it is difficult to draw a line of distinction," he said.

Kudo spoke of his determination to have clear legislation after pointing out the damage caused when images of athletes' bodies are posted and proliferated on the internet.

He gave examples of other countries where clandestine photography is punishable by law.

Oyama says she first learned the reality of photo voyeurism in junior high school when, while changing out of her uniform at a venue with no locker room, her coach warned that photos of her were being snapped.

"I feel a responsibility to create an environment where children can genuinely engage in sports," Oyama, now a mother of two, said about her call for stronger legislation.

Until now, people caught by police taking photos without the subject's consent fell under the purview of prefectural anti-disturbance ordinances. But ordinances differ from municipality to municipality regarding the acts they cover and the penalties involved.

Along with legislation related to "photography crime" prohibiting surreptitious pictures of a person in postures that might be construed as sexual in nature, supplying or disseminating sexually explicit images or video are also included as punishable offenses.

Such voyeurism cases have occurred more frequently in recent years, with a corresponding uptick in arrests made. Under the new law, violators would face imprisonment of up to three years or a fine of up to 3 million yen.

The new regulation, however, does not include photography of athletes in sporting attire at competitions, except in cases when an infrared camera that can see through clothing is used. It would prohibit the taking of such photos of athletes in training, though.

According to the National Police Agency, the number of arrests for surreptitious photography reached 5,019 cases in 2021, roughly three times the 2010 figure.

One major cause for the increase was the spread of smartphones but perpetrators say that no matter how they do it, they treat it like a game which allows them to find satisfaction with little regard for guilt or risk.

There is a common psychology to men who take photos of athletes or others with sexually exploitative intent. Some view it as "dependence syndrome" because people carrying out such activities tend to do it on a regular basis, making it a deeply-rooted issue.

"It was curiosity. I tried it and snapped the photo. It was almost like a game," a former junior high school teacher in his 40s who began taking voyeuristic photos in college told Kyodo News in an interview about his first time committing the offense.

As he was able to capture more and more images, he became increasingly absorbed in "the game," and his methods became increasingly daring.

"I never imagined I'd be caught," but in 2019, a train passenger spotted him placing his smartphone under the skirt of a female high school student. He was referred to prosecutors on suspicion of violating an anti-disturbance ordinance.

He felt guilty about his actions as a teacher responsible for children. But he added, "When I was doing it, all my inhibitions flew away. When the switch turned on, I forgot everything and couldn't see anything around me."

About 2,000 voyeuristic images were found stored on his phone when he was caught.

The man believes that photographing athletes for sexual gratification can be considered the same as doing it on a train or the street. "It is a value that pervades our society. There is a Japanese view that sexualizes women," he said.

Akiyoshi Saito, a social worker who treats and supports sex addicts, says that photo voyeurism, like gambling, "has an aspect of dependence on the act."

Although the new legislation will undoubtedly impose penalties in hopes of preventing the crimes, the former teacher said, "It's not that simple. There are people who would do it even if they were sentenced to death."

In March, an aviation trade union released a survey suggesting that about 70 percent of flight attendants in Japan have reported photos being taken of them surreptitiously.

Akira Naito, chairman of the Japan Federation of Aviation Industry Unions, called the number "astonishing," stressing the need for strict penalties through legislation.

Although flight attendants primarily answered that their entire bodies or faces had been photographed, some reported pictures of their breasts, buttocks or other regions being taken in the close confines of an aircraft, demonstrating it is an all-pervasive issue.

Sakura Kamitani, a lawyer and expert on victims of photo voyeurism, said, "The trend toward making it a crime to photograph is a big step forward, but it is unfortunate that athlete voyeurism is not punishable."

"I am aware that it is difficult to put the law into writing, but it is still a crime that requires legislation," Kamitani said.

Source: https://japantoday.com/category/crime/focus-japan-moves-to-criminalize-exploitative-photo-voyeurism

"Social media fails to follow traditional news outlets' stricter approach to portrait rights in Japan"

Here's an important new article by Patrick St. Michel at The Japan Times, 5/4/19. It should be added to the VAOJ "Shooting Culture in Japan" project which deals with the ethics of doing visual anthropology in Japan. Methods, ethics and privacy are constantly evolving and changing with new technology, thinking and practices. The discourse on these issues needs to continue.

A man in Chiba Prefecture became irritated last month at how long it was taking for a barrier at a rail crossing to open. Losing patience, he fetched a hand saw from his van and removed the barrier arm so that he could drive through.

Unfortunately, another person recorded the incident on their phone and posted it on Twitter. The user apologized for capturing a few passing cars’ license plates, but believed it was important to capture the man’s behavior. The post went viral, attracting tons of attention online before ultimately being picked up by television networks.

When excerpts from the video were broadcast on TV, news programs blurred the man’s face. This is common practice for mass media in Japan, but this was only one of several recent incidents underlining how social media has changed such perception of privacy. Sites such as Twitter and YouTube are far more likely to encroach into someone’s space, whether the purpose is to shame someone for acting badly … or simply score some laughs.

Part of the appeal of the internet early on in Japan was the sense of anonymity granted to users. This allowed sites such as 2channel or Mixi to become hubs of online activity. Even today, Twitter in Japan stands apart from other platforms because of this, with its privacy policy even specifying that pseudonyms are acceptable.

This anonymity has emboldened users to attack others, with no hesitation about hiding their identity. One of the most popular genres of video online is the DQN video, a slang term referring to people acting in a stupid or obnoxious fashion. Compilations on YouTube capture such behavior in convenience stores and on the streets. This has extended to all corners of the internet, where some use the Net as a way to shame anyone doing something they shouldn’t be doing.

A recent example of this occurred in Nagoya, where a man delayed a train by refusing to let its doors close. A video of the incident was shared online and was ultimately picked up by TV networks, which also blurred the faces of the people that appeared in the frame.

This is because the networks are playing it safe. Media law in Japan gives people the right to be left alone, while portrait rights allow individuals to avoid being photographed. Such legislation has been around for decades as a way to protect identities, although the application of such laws gets blurry pretty fast. In short, if you film in public and you publish the results online, a person in the footage can in theory file a complaint if their identity is clear. Such practice also applies to social media, as a person can file similar complaints to YouTube or Twitter.

In general, traditional media abides by these standards to avoid lawsuits. They are bigger targets with large financial reserves, after all. Individual online users generally don’t have to worry about this too much, although it is possible to find yourself in hot water for uploading such posts.

It isn’t all about documenting jerks and teens messing with food. The Twitter account Shibuya Meltdown shares photos and videos of people sleeping in the entertainment district, along with images of other chaotic behavior.

“Yeah, for some reason it’s the funniest thing in the world,” account founder Thom O’Brien told Vice in 2016.

Is it ethical? In the Vice interview, O’Brien wrestles with this question, but justifies it by saying being in public makes them fair game (while also avoiding ethical pits such as photographing homeless individuals). Shibuya Meltdown is ultimately a DQN account without the shaming (down to highlighting recent incidents), and has proven popular both at home and abroad. It helps that O’Brien says he doesn’t profit from the site or try to sway public opinion — compare this to a like-minded Polish photographer’s series, which was published in a book and tried to take a broader look at life in Japan. People weren’t so happy.

However, trepidation still exists. Sometimes, Japanese netizens post images on #shibuyameltdown but go so far as to blur out faces.

Maybe the best way to look at privacy on social media in Japan is to treat each user like its own TV station, and it is up to them to decide whether or not to play it safe and blur the faces. Hopefully, they will be able to save a few barrier poles at rail crossings in the process.

Source: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/04/national/media-national/social-media-fails-follow-traditional-news-outlets-stricter-approach-portrait-rights-japan/

Click here for the VAOJ "Shooting Culture in Japan" project posts.

"NHK violated Obokata’s rights: broadcasting ethics panel"

From The Japan Times, 2/11/17.

An independent committee said Friday that an NHK TV program committed a human rights violation against disgraced biologist Haruko Obokata, who claimed to have discovered a faster way to generate iPS cells that can grow into any tissue in the human body.

The human rights committee of the Broadcasting Ethics & Program Improvement Organization judged that the program defamed her and decided to issue an advisory urging NHK to prevent similar incidents.

It was the first time that the ethics group has recognized a human rights violation in a program produced by the public broadcaster.

“We see here a human rights violation of defamation,” its report said.

The program, broadcast in July 2014, investigated alleged fraud in Obokata’s research on so-called stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency (STAP) published in the scientific journal Nature.

Obokata, a former researcher at Riken, a top state-backed research institute, submitted a complaint to the ethics group claiming that the program was produced to show that she had stolen embryonic stem cells to conduct her STAP experiments.

NHK rejected her claim, saying it produced the program using objective facts and used care in the expressions it used.

The program investigated allegedly fraudulent acts related to embryonic stem cells found at Obokata’s laboratory office.

The ethics committee concluded that the evidence presented by NHK was insufficient to support the claim that Obokata stole embryonic stem cells.

Furthermore, the committee said NHK’s news-gathering activities, which saw TV crews hounding Obokata, were problematic in terms of broadcasting ethics.

Saying NHK may have intended not only to seek the scientific truth, but also to make Obokata look like a fraud, the ethics committee urged it to reconsider its news-gathering and broadcasting techniques when media coverage is excessive.

“I appreciate the fair conclusion,” Obokata said through her agent in response to the panel’s findings. The NHK program’s “impact on my life will never disappear,” she said.

Obokata does not intend to file a lawsuit at the moment, lawyer Hideo Miki said.

Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/11/national/nhk-violated-obokatas-rights-broadcasting-ethics-panel/

"Embarrassing Photos of Me, Thanks to My Right-Wing Stalkers"

Photo (that accompanied the quoted text below)

 from International New York Times, 8/5/16

Following up on the last post about a severe breach of privacy and photo ethics I offer some passages from an op-ed by Bill McKibben in the International New York Times, 8/5/16 to further illustrate the power and abuse of power of photography.

There are shameful photos of me on the internet.

In one series, my groceries are being packed into plastic bags, as I’d forgotten to bring cloth ones. In other shots, I am getting in and out of … cars. There are video snippets of me giving talks, or standing on the street. Sometimes I see the cameraman, sometimes I don’t. The images are often posted to Twitter, reminders that I’m being watched.

In April, Politico and The Hill reported that America Rising Squared, an arm of the Republican opposition research group America Rising, had decided to go after me and Tom Steyer, another prominent environmentalist, with a campaign on a scale previously reserved for presidential candidates. Using what The Hill called “an unprecedented amount of effort and money,” the group, its executive director said, was seeking to demonstrate our “epic hypocrisy and extreme positions.”

Since then, my days in public have often involved cameramen walking backward and videotaping my every move. It’s mostly when I travel (I’ve encountered them in at least five states so far, as well as in Australia), and generally when I’m in a public or semipublic space. They aren’t interested in my arguments; instead, these videos, usually wordless, are simply posted on Twitter, almost always with music. One showed me sitting in a church pew, accompanied by the song “Show Me That Smile.” The tweet read, “Ready for his close-up.”
...

This effort has resulted in all kinds of odd things appearing on right-wing corners of the web: out-of-context quotations from old books and articles apparently put on display to prove I’m a zealot, and photos from God knows who intended to make me out as a hypocrite (the plastic bags, for instance, and my travel by car, which, you know, burns gas). Mostly, they’ve just published those creepy videos, to remind me that I’m under surveillance.
...

Merely having someone with a camera follow you somehow makes you feel as if you’re doing something wrong.

...

And yet, for all that logic, I still find myself on edge. To be watched so much is a kind of never-ending nightmare. And sometimes it’s just infuriating. I skipped the funeral this summer of Patrick Sorrento, an important mentor to me at my college newspaper, because I didn’t want my minder to follow me and cause a distracting spectacle. When my daughter reports someone taking pictures of her at the airport, it drives me nuts. I have no idea if it’s actually this outfit; common decency would suggest otherwise, but that seems an increasingly rare commodity.

...

A good thing about movements is that you really do have brothers and sisters, and they do have your back. The fossil-fuel industry may threaten us as a planet, as a nation, and as individuals, but when we rise up together we’ve got a fighting chance against the powers that be.

And perhaps that realization is just a little bit scary for them.

Read the entire op-ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/embarrassing-photos-of-me-thanks-to-my-right-wing-stalkers.html

"Singer Akina Nakamori wins damages suit over secret photograph"

From Japan Today, 7/28/16.

A secret photograph of singer Akina Nakamori taken during a break from show business aggravated her illness and may have delayed the resumption of her career, a court ruled Wednesday, ordering a publisher and a photographer to pay compensation to the veteran singer.

The Tokyo District Court awarded the 51-year-old Nakamori 5.5 million yen in compensation from Shogakukan Inc and the photographer for mental distress. The singer had sought 22 million yen.

In November 2013, the photographer captured an image of Nakamori inside her Tokyo apartment, using a telephoto lens from an apartment about 45 meters away. Shogakukan printed the image in the Josei Seven weekly magazine for women.

Nakamori, who was taking a break from her career due to illness, “suffered tremendous pain due to the illegal photograph,” Presiding Judge Yuko Mizuno said. As a result, the singer was obliged to move to a different location.

Nakamori, who debuted in 1982 with the single “Slow Motion,” resumed television appearances more than a year later at the end of 2014 when she sang in NHK’s “Kohaku” (red and white) annual song festival.

The male photographer had been convicted of violating the Minor Offenses Law by the Tokyo Summary Court, which found his act was a form of voyeurism.

Source: http://www.japantoday.com/category/entertainment/view/singer-akina-nakamori-wins-damages-suit-over-secret-photograph

This is a case where someone's personal privacy was violated, a photo published without consent and a lawsuit being won by the victim under a Japanese law that is quite different than in other countries. Here's the gist of this Japanese defamation law.

In Japanese, then, defemation/meiyo kison is not about damage to mere reputation (hyoban)... it's about damage to honor (meiyo)... Reputation/hyoban is the view from the outside, how others see you... Honor/meiyo has several definitions... [I]t also includes... internal feelings that can be variously described as pride, personal integrity, dignity, or awareness of the worth of one's character. It's this concept of honor as both internal feelings and external reputation that illuminates the Japanese defamation law regime. (From Mark D. West. 2006 Secrets, Sex and Spectacle: The Rules of Scandal in Japan and the United States. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Chapter 3 "Privacy and Honor" p. 79)

For more on these issues in Japan, please review the Shooting Culture in Japan Project on VAOJ.

"Broadcasting watchdog finds TBS violated scandal-hit composer Samuragochi’s rights"

From The Japan Times, 11/18/15. See the VAOJ commentary at the end of the story.

A Tokyo Broadcasting System Television variety show committed a human rights violation when it aired a segment on allegations surrounding composer Mamoru Samuragochi in March 2014, an independent panel promoting ethical broadcasting has ruled.

In a rare harsh decision against a TV network, the Broadcasting Ethics & Program Improvement Organization (BPO) urged TBS to broadcast its decision and prevent similar incidents in the future.

The decision, announced Tuesday, is the toughest penalty the industry watchdog can take against a network. It is the first time in nine years the BPO said a TV program violated human rights.

The segment in question was aired during the program, “Akko ni Omakase,” featuring Akiko Wada, a singer and talk show host known for not mincing words.

Introducing a news conference given by Samuragochi, who apologized for having had another composer ghostwrite his music, the program narrator said “normal conversations took place (between him and the reporters).”

Such narration gave the impression to viewers that he was faking deafness, “without sufficient grounds to assume so,” and damaged his reputation, the BPO said.

“It is a sensitive theme that concerns the human rights of the hearing impaired, and should have been given sufficient consideration from the viewpoint of broadcasting ethics,” the BPO said.

The BPO concluded another variety show aired on the Fuji TV network that also featured the controversy surrounding Samuragochi, which the composer claimed humiliated him, did not violate ethical standards.

TBS released a statement following the BPO decision, saying it will “take the recommendation sincerely.”

“We tried to present the questions raised by (Samuragochi’s) news conference, including views from experts. But we will examine the panel’s decision in detail and will use it in future programming,” TBS said.

Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/18/national/media-national/broadcast-ethics-panel-chides-tbs-says-show-violated-scandal-hit-composer-samuragochs-rights/

I am still trying to get my head around this story. On the one hand it definitely illustrates how the idea of defamation is different in Japan. Samuragochi, once dubbed the Beethoven of Japan, was caught red-handed lying. There is no denying this. But it doesn't matter that he did something wrong. Rather his image and spirit were seen to be damaged through televised narration that might have given the audience a false impression. This is a standard interpretation of defamation laws in Japan.

What I am having difficulties with is the idea of how the "human rights of the hearing impaired" were damaged. The problematic narration was "normal conversations took place (between Samuraguchi and reporters)." Does that not also imply that a deaf or hearing impaired person is unable to have normal conversations with hearing people? And if they do they are somehow faking deafness? As there is a wide variation in levels of deafness and communication styles, some (not all) deaf/hearing impaired people can speak and speechread so as to have so-called normal conversations. Is this decision by the BPO not another example of possibly giving impressions "without sufficient grounds to assume so"?

"It’s OK to film people in public in Japan, if the conditions justify it"

My colleague Sally brought this recent article by attorney Kyoko Hijikata in The Japan Times (1/25/15) to my attention. It addresses a complex question that VAOJ has been wrestling with for years.

Reader R.S. asks, “In Japan, is it OK to film other people in public?

Well, in Japan, freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. As filming and taking pictures are two of the means by which individuals can express their ideas, they are protected by Article 21.

On the other hand, people have the right not to be photographed or filmed without good reason. We call this their portrait rights, and this right is based on Article 13 of the Constitution, which guarantees the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

So, Japan’s courts have had to consider which right takes priority in particular cases. In a ruling in 2005, the Supreme Court stated that taking photos without consent is illegal if the extent of the violation of the subject’s personal rights exceeds the maximum acceptable according to social norms, while taking into consideration the social status of the people photographed, the content of activities, the location where filming took place, the photographers’ purpose, the way the pictures were taken, the necessity of capturing the images, and so on. Although the case that led to this ruling concerned courtroom photographs and drawings, the precedent is considered to apply equally to film.

In the Supreme Court case, the photographer had taken pictures of the accused in court, and the Supreme Court made the judgment that this act was illegal because the accused was in handcuffs, which were tied to a rope around his waist, and the photographer had not obtained the court’s permission to take pictures.

As described above, the courts make judgments based on several factors, which means the decision-making process can be quite detailed, and rulings will differ from case to case depending on these variables.

For example, in another quite similar case in November 1993, the Tokyo High Court ruled that images of a suspect being driven to court were legal. The filming was done from the road, and the picture of the accused only showed his upper body, so restraints such as handcuffs and ropes were not visible.

So, to answer the reader’s question, “Is there a right to film other people in public?” the answer is “Yes, but only if it can be justified in the circumstances.”

Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2015/01/25/how-tos/its-ok-to-film-people-in-public-in-japan-if-the-conditions-justify-it/#.VMXRrieWRHB

I think this answer to the question of photographing in public in Japan is dangerous because of its simplicity. Hijikata discusses the difficulty courts have in making such decisions (there are many more cases the author should probably have considered other than those dealing with criminals - how about some real life scenarios?) so how can a normal citizen, student and/or foreigner judge "if it can be justified in the circumstances"? It is more than simple rights - ethics, morals, values and feelings should be considered. If I were pressed to give a simplistic answer to this question, I would say ask the person you are photographing for permission.

For previous VAOJ coverage of this question, see the Shooting Culture in Japan project: http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2009/02/ethics-of-visual-anthropology-in-japan_12.html

Ethics of Visual Anthropology in Japan - Part Eight: The Dialogue Continues

I cannot believe it has been 5 years since the beginning of VAOJ's Shooting Culture in Japan project. The first goal of the project was to establish and suggest some guidelines for shooting film and photographs in Japan for students in my Visual Anthropology of Japan course. Through the years my students have produced successful blogs, photo exhibitions and films with no major ethical or legal problems. The second goal of the project was to begin and promote dialogue and discussion of the methods and ethics of shooting culture with an emphasis on Japan. VAOJ produced seven posts providing various sources and perspectives on the issues of shooting film and photographs in Japan. You can review these posts at the following url:

http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2009/02/ethics-of-visual-anthropology-in-japan_12.html

I am happy to report that the dialogue has continued (or was going on in places I had not yet seen). Here I want to provide a long overdue update that includes important resources dealing with photography and visual anthropology from academic institutions, anthropologists and photographers.

First, I would like to examine the efforts of the Society for Visual Anthropology (SVA, a section of the American Anthropological Association, AAA). On November 28, 2001 it produced the following:

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Ethnographic Visual Media

AAA STATEMENT produced by the SOCIETY FOR VISUAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Ethnographic visual media (specially film, video, photography and digital multimedia) play a significant role in the production and application of anthropological knowledge and form an integral part of the discipline’s course offerings. Anthropologists involved in the production of visual works make valuable scholarly contributions to the discipline. In addition, anthropologists increasingly include visual media productions as part of their curricula vitae. Departmental and university Committees for Hiring, Promoting and Tenure are thus charged with judging the scholarly quality of these non-print works. Yet not all anthropologists bring appropriate experience or training to their evaluation of visual media and no standard guideline exists.

The above is the first paragraph which seems to be mostly concerned with academic institutions being able to recognize and judge the merit of visual methods and images in anthropological research. The last sentence is important that it indicates the lack of any guidelines in methods and evaluation. See the whole statement at the following url:

http://www.aaanet.org/about/Policies/Guide_Visual.cfm

In 2007 the SVA, especially members Sara Perry and Jonathon S. Marion, began a series of discussions and roundtables on the ethics involved in visual anthropology. Their publication, "State of the Ethics in Visual Anthropology"(Visual Anthropology Review, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 96–104) includes a description of the first three events (2007, 2008, 2009). Below is a brief overview of the SVA sponsored discussions and roundtables (italicized descriptions come from Perry and Marion 2010 for the first three events; descriptions of the last three events are borrowed from announcements on the SVA blog).

2007 "Ethics and Examples: A Discussion Regarding Visual Ethics"

Main theme: real-world ethical matters faced by anthropologists working with visual data (p. 96).

2008 "The Ethics of Visual Data: Picturing Inclusion, Collaboration, and Engagement"

Of note: cases from the subfields of archaeological, sociocultural and biological anthropology (p.97).

2009 "End/s, Ethics, and Images: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Main theme: visual media, as with all forms of representation, are often used and understood in unanticipated ways outside and sometimes within their original anthropological frameworks of creation (p. 97).

2010 “Ethics and Images: A Discussion of Visual Ethics and Circulation”

Main theme: to explore the ethical considerations implicated and involved in the intersections of images and circulation.

2011 "Traces of the Image: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Questions of interest: How have histories of anthropological practice impacted on our contemporary management of imagery? How are shifting visual technologies and intellectual paradigms disrupting or rearranging our ethical priorities? Where is representational authority situated in unstable, multiply-occupied/authored anthropological contexts?

2012 "On The Boarders of the Image: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Of particular interest is the iterative and unstable nature of image use-the navigation of visual value systems and moralities across time, space, cultural and institutional context, particularly when circumscribed by programmatic ethical review models.

2013 "Conflicting Accounts: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Goal: to investigate the responsibility of photographers, filmmakers, ethnographers to present a ‘balanced’ representation of the conflict.

These authors are to be commended for their work and keeping the dialogue going. Their "State of the Ethics in Visual Anthropology" also provides guidelines from other anthropological associations that have ethical guidelines for their members that the SVA and AAA currently lack.

Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth - Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice (March, 1999)

These guidelines address such issues as personal and moral relationships, trust and reciprocity between the researcher and research participants, power relationships, informed consent, rejection of visual methods, intellectual property rights, copyright clearances, etc. See the details at the following url:

http://www.theasa.org/ethics/guidelines.shtml

Statement Of Ethical Practice For The British Sociological Association – Visual Sociology Group (December 2006)

These guidelines start out with an important Statement of Intent:

The statement does not represent a core method for resolving ethical choices or dilemmas, but aims to give direction and stimulate consideration of ethical factors in sociological research utilizing visual methodologies/methods.

The statement is not an exhaustive list of ethical considerations, but rather a guide to ethical practice in professional activities.

The strength of this statement rest ultimately on active discussion, reflection, and its continued use by sociologists. In addition, the statement will help to communicate the professional position of sociologists to others, especially those involved in or affected by the activities of sociologists.

The document goes on to consider professional integrity, legal considerations, relations and responsibilities towards research participants, covert research, anonymity, privacy and confidentiality. See details in the following url:

http://www.visualsociology.org.uk/about/ethical_statement.php

These two sets of guidelines are important and helpful. Again, many thanks to Perry and Marion for supplying them in their article. Perry and Marion go on to comment about attempts to provide guidelines:

...what they witness is our collective struggles with matters of visual competency and authority: with questions about what constitutes ‘‘the visual,’’ who owns it, who can reproduce and educate about it, where it resides, how it can be manipulated and construed, and with what effects, and who has the skill to manage it with the fewest adverse ramifications. At stake, thus, are major issues of accountability, responsibility, social justice, authorship, rigor, specificity, and overall proficiency and training in image production and circulation. These are matters common and significant to all forms and subjects of visual representation and to all who make, disseminate, and consume such representation. They may not always be manageable with the same tools or intellectual strategies, but as the SVA ethics roundtables attest, they are present and potent across the anthropological field - no subdiscipline excluded (p. 100).

Perry and Marion also indicate that a SVA ethics committee has been formed. I look forward to hearing more about this group and their work.

***

Another helpful resources that sheds light on these issues specifically in Japan is the edited book by Jennifer E. Robertson, Politics and Pitfalls of Japan Ethnography: Reflexivity, Responsibility, and Anthropological Ethics (2009; Routledge Press). ann-elise lewallen provides a chapter entitled, “Bones of Contention: Negotiating Anthropological Ethics within Fields of Ainu Refusal” (p. 3-24) where she describes the 1985 lawsuit of Ainu activist Cikap Mieko against editors of Ainu Minzokushi (Ainu Ethnology) for unauthorized publishing of her photo. lewallen writes:

In the portrait rights lawsuit she later launched, she challenged the way that scholars had treated her as a ‘research object’ and criticized the books portrayal of Ainu as ‘primitive,’ ‘barbarian,’ and ‘uncivilized.’ Although the lawsuit is framed as a ‘portrait rights case,’ Cikap’s rationale for launching the case stems from usage of her photograph in a text that epitomizes the colonialist invasion of Hokkaido and academic excess (12).

One result of this lawsuit was the Japanese Society of Ethnology (JSE) 1989 “Statement on Ainu and Research Ethics” which established general standards for Ainu research, urging researchers to recognize Ainu as a distinct ethnic group, to promote collaborative research, and to promote public education of Ainu issues (12). But JSE guidelines for all research lack except for their Research Ethics Committee brief report in Minzokugaku Kenkyu (society journal) that touched upon issues including relations between researchers and researched, concerns related to gender, obligations to repatriate research findings, copyright and portrait rights, informant remuneration, and language and translation issues (12). lewallen discusses the problem of a perceived "ethics allergy" [where a] compulsory code might impinge on academic freedom (13).

***

One final source I would like to present is a very important book that was mentioned in a previous VAOJ post and is especially relevant for this discussion:

日本写真家協会 [Japan Professional Photographer’s Society]
2007 スナップ写真のルールとマナー [The Rules and Manners of Snapshot Photos]. Tokyo: Asahi Shinsho.

This book is written in Japanese; I take all responsibility for any errors in interpretation of ideas or language. The book was written in the context of more and more digital cameras and cell phone cameras available and thus being used more often in public. In some instances, intentional or not, problems have arisen in photographing and/or the dissemination of images. The book endorses good relationships with people in the realms of trust, manners, etiquette, morals, human interaction and human rights. In the areas of publishing and displaying photos the book provides legal definitions and discussions of portrait rights, copyright, use rights, personal rights, property rights and publication rights. More specifically it provides various scenarios and gives advice for each setting. These scenarios include street fairs, parks, sight-seeing locations, temples/shrines, mountain hiking paths, sporting events, shops, etc. The following are general themes that appear in various sections of the book that I have summarized and feel to be good advice for taking photos in public in Japan (especially in the realm of not for profit and for academic use only):

1. Get permission; under most circumstances a release form is not necessary. Smile and give the ”simple asking gesture” before you shoot. It is usually obvious when people do not want to be photographed.

2. Explain what you are doing and offer to send/give photos to the people you are photographing.

3. If people object, don’t take the photo.

4. Don’t take covert photos.

5. Don’t get in the way of events or people resting (from an activity or hiking, for example).

6. Respect people and their property. Understand their personal and human rights.

7. Have a confident, positive attitude; always be grateful for taking photos.

8. Put yourself in the place of your subjects: would you want to be photographed in that particular situation?

This good advice along with the various information presented from these resources seem to reinforce the scenarios and advice offered in Part Seven of this series. VAOJ will keep this dialogue going through introducing more resources and posting related and articles. Please contribute to this dialogue through comments, ideas, experiences and recommended related resources.

Update: "Monkeys, ghosts and gods 'cannot own copyright' says US"

From The Telegraph, 8/21/14:

In the wake of controversy over Wikipedia’s free and worldwide distribution of a monkey ‘selfie’ against the wishes of the man who claims to own copyright, the US has issued new guidance that says monkeys, ghosts and gods are all banned from possessing image rights.

The US Copyright Office has published a draft update to its rules regarding ownership of creative works like photographs, text and art – the first changes in more than two decades – which explicitly state that it will only recognise pieces produced by a human.

Among the 1,222 pages of updated rules and regulations are explicit bans on works produced by “nature, animals, or plants” or “purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings”.

In a list of examples of prohibited applications is “a photograph taken by a monkey” - an apparent nod to the recent Wikipedia case.

Wikimedia, the US-based organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to remove one of his images which it uses online without his permission, claiming that because a monkey pressed the shutter button there is no copyright on it.

The group has included the image in its database of royalty free images, which it offers for use worldwide, but the photographer claims it is his to sell and licence.

British nature photographer David Slater was in Indonesia in 2011 attempting to get the perfect image of a crested black macaque when one of the animals came up to investigate his equipment, hijacked a camera and took hundreds of selfies.

Slater has since complained that Wikimedia’s distribution of the image is affecting his ability to make a living from his work. He incurred costs of several thousands of pounds to arrange the photo shoot, which required the use of his own expensive equipment.

Also prohibited under the new US copyright rules would be “a mural painted by an elephant” or “a claim based on the appearance of actual animal skin”.

Despite the bans on works created by gods and ghosts, the Office may register a work where the application states that the work was “inspired by a divine spirit”, it says.

The update will “set the stage for a number of long-term improvements in the area of registration” of copyright, claims the Office. It is described as a “comprehensive overhaul that makes the practices and standards of the Office more timely and transparent”.

The draft will remain on review until it takes official effect some time around December 15 this year. The practices within it are not law, but do inform future legislation and set out how the Office makes internal decisions.

In the UK, under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, a photographer can claim rights over an image even if he or she did not press the shutter button if the results are their “intellectual creation” – for example, they came up with the concept of a monkey taking a “selfie”.

However, such a case has never been tried in court and the outcome would be uncertain.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11048695/Monkeys-ghosts-and-gods-cannot-own-copyright-says-US.html

Original story: http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2014/08/who-owns-this-monkeys-selfie.html

"SDF pilot arrested for taking photos up girl's skirt at train station"

From Japan Today, August 8, 2014:

A 42-year-old Air Self-Defense Force pilot has been arrested after he took photos up a girl’s skirt at a train station in Nagareyama, Chiba Prefecture.

According to police, the suspect, identified as Shigetaka Katagiri, took photos up a 27-year-old woman’s skirt with his smartphone, while riding an escalator at Nagareyama Otakanomori station at around 10:30 p.m. on Tuesday, TBS reported.

Police said that while taking the pictures, Katagiri’s phone came into contact with the woman’s buttocks, causing her to notice and cry out. Katagiri attempted to flee the scene, but was chased and caught by the woman and a man who had been nearby at the time.

According to Ministry of Defense officials, in April of this year, Katagiri was transferred from the ASDF to the Ministry of Defense Inspector General Headquarters. As inspector general, Katagiri had been in charge of enforcing sexual harassment prevention protocols.

Sigh... yet another example of what visual anthropologists (or anybody else) should not do. You might want to check out the interesting comments at the source.

Source: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/sdf-pilot-arrested-for-taking-photos-up-girls-skirt-at-train-station

"Who owns this monkey’s selfie?"

Image and text borrowed from MSN News, August 7, 2014.

When a monkey commandeered a nature photographer’s camera on a small Indonesian island a few years ago, the results were extraordinary. Among the images captured by the crested black macaque were a few amazing images of himself.

Those monkey selfies made headlines back in 2011, and two of the photographs made their way to the Wikipedia page for the monkey’s species, which is endangered. Wikipedia only uses images that are in the public domain, but the feeling was that, since the monkey snapped the photo, no one could claim the copyrights to it.

“This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested,” Wikipedia’s collective band of editors explained.

The nature photographer, David Slater, felt otherwise. He sent a takedown request to the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, claiming that the photographs belong to him because they were taken with his camera.

“We didn’t agree, so we denied the request,” Wikimedia said in a new report about takedown requests it has received. The organization clearly highlighted the monkey selfie dispute in an effort to draw attention to its broader campaign against censorship.

See the whole story and related video: http://news.msn.com/offbeat/who-owns-this-monkey%E2%80%99s-selfie-1

VAOJ took up similar issues in the Japanese context in 2009 that included information from North American Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources. In their Image Use Protocol which suggests "Best practices for locating and using Japanese visual images for teaching, research, and publications," the following are rights holders to a particular image: copyright holders, owners of objects (in the image), image owners and subjects in the photos. So for the self portrait (I hate the term "selfie") of the monkey, can we ask permission for image use from the monkey (does the monkey know sign language?)? Does the photographer automatically have copyright because it was his camera and his efforts that brought the photo to the attention to the public? Did the photographer have permission from the Indonesian government or other agencies where the monkey is located? Why didn't Wikipedia ask the photographer in the first place? Does Wikipedia have the right to establish what is public domain on their own?

These are complex questions and issues that illustrate current copyright ideas/practices are no simple monkey business...

North American Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources: http://guides.nccjapan.org/content.php?pid=195789&sid=1645699#5364144

VAOJ Shooting Culture in Japan project: http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2009/02/ethics-of-visual-anthropology-in-japan_12.html

"Mobile-fixated girls easy prey for photo-snapping pervs"

From The Japan Times, May 25, 2014:

by Eric Johnston

With more than 167,000 students studying at 49 universities, junior colleges and technical schools, and with large numbers of high school students visiting on trips, it’s no surprise that Kyoto Prefecture can feel like a giant campus.

Downtown Kyoto and neighborhoods near major universities draw huge numbers of young men and women out for a good time, while train and bus stations disgorge teenagers and young adults, sometimes chattering, sometimes sleepy, on their way to or from class or a sightseeing spot with classmates. But as Kyoto police have warned, it’s teenagers who are most at risk from perverts with a camera.

The Kyoto Prefectural Police said 51 percent of the victims of illicit photography reported last year were their teens. In 38 percent of the cases, they were photographed on commercial premises, especially shopping malls, while 35 percent were snapped in train and bus stations.

In 57 percent of the cases, the alleged perpetrators were charged with illegally taking photos with smartphones. A further 20 percent used regular cell phones and 13 percent used digital cameras.

Just over two-thirds of the accused perpetrators were in their 20s and 30s, while one in five was over 40. Only eight percent of the perpetrators were 50 or older.

Prefectural governments and police departments, including Kyoto, suggest practical steps high school or college-aged females can take to minimize the chance of becoming an unwitting victim of a pervert with a camera. These include pressing down their skirts when on elevators and staircases, but also being more aware of their surroundings while shopping or using their smartphone while standing.

It’s advice so simple some might think it a waste of government time and money to be posting on official government websites. However, a March survey of more than 1,200 teenagers and parents by Digital Arts, a Tokyo-based IT security firm, showed 95 percent of high school girls had mobile devices, and that nearly 30 percent of all high school students were using them between three and six hours a day, checking e-mail, sending text messages, playing games, and so absorbed that they are unaware of their surroundings or what other shoppers, passengers, or people walking or standing behind them might be doing with a smart phone camera.

Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/05/25/national/mobile-fixated-girls-easy-prey-for-photo-snapping-pervs/#.U4NlNS9ZG2x

"Kyoto law puts ‘upskirt’ photography in focus"

From The Japan Times, May 25, 2014:

Penalty for illicit snaps upped to ¥1 million fine or a year in prison

by Eric Johnston

Each spring, Kyoto is at its busiest. The cherry blossoms bring in multitudes of tourists, and the start of the new academic year means not only thousands of local students returning to the classroom, but also busloads of junior high and high school students from around the country arriving at hotels and taking the obligatory tour of Kyoto’s historical and cultural landmarks.

At this time in particular, no visitor can fail to escape the clicking of cameras. Be they the semi-professional photographer, with his Canon EOS ID X, Nest Traveller NT-6294AK tripod and telephoto lens longer than your arm, posed on the banks of the Kamo River waiting for the right mix of light and shadow, or the hordes of tourists prowling the backstreets of Gion with their iPhone cameras, searching for Kyoto “geiko” or, really, anything “Kyotoesque” to quickly snap to prove they were there. Everybody is a shutterbug.

But in recent years, the Kyoto police have warned, another kind of photography has become a public nuisance: “Upskirting.”

Surreptitious filming or taking of pictures up the skirts of high school females has long made headlines throughout Japan. A whole subgenre of magazines exists for Peeping Toms who earn their living by taking photos on the sly, while the Internet has created unprecedented opportunities for getting photos and video out to the peeping public.

In an attempt to crack down on sleazy photographers, Kyoto Prefecture has revised an ordinance that expands the scope of protection. Ordinances forbidding covert filming do exist for public places such as shopping centers, railway stations, trains and buses, which fall under the definition of public buildings and transport systems.

The problem, however, is that their scope has traditionally been limited, tying the hands of local governments in preventing perverts from shooting illicit pictures or video, while the punishments have been deemed by police and legal experts as often insufficient to deter perpetrators even if they do get caught.

In October 2012, a male teacher at a Kyoto city junior high school was caught taking pictures under girls’ skirts. Kyoto police could not make an arrest for illegally filming and had to arrest him on another charge. But the incident sparked local interest in expanding the definition of the ordinance, which had been limited to “public places and transport.”

Expanding the definition beyond “public places,” it had long been felt, ran the risk of violating Article 35 of the Constitution, which states that “the right of all persons to be secure in their homes, papers and effects against entries, searches and seizures shall not be impaired.”

But police and law enforcement authorities had long complained that “public places” meant limited protection in quasi-public areas.

A Kyoto prefectural survey last year of 1,700 people said 63 percent did not know that schools and private workplaces fall outside the definition of a “public place”. A total of 89 percent favored extending the reach of the ordinance.

The newly revised ordinance, approved by the assembly in March, now forbids surreptitious filming at “places likely to come under the public eye.”

This means public schools, workplaces, and hospitals are now included in places forbidding such filming or photography. In addition, the revision strengthens the penalty for hidden cameras used at public hot spring bathing areas, changing rooms, and public toilets.

Moreover, in an effort to discourage illicit photographers everywhere, it creates stricter penalties for those who are caught doing all surreptitious filming.

Previously, punishment was up to six months in jail or a ¥500,000 fine. The new penalty is up to one year in prison or a fine of up to ¥1 million.

The change in Kyoto has drawn interest from other local governments. Ishikawa Prefecture plans to propose similar revisions at next month’s assembly, and other governments in the Kansai region have contacted Kyoto Prefecture expressing an interest in adopting something similar.

“It’s not just Kyoto. Other prefectures also think that their ordinances are insufficient. Twenty-seven prefectures are now considering similar revisions,” said Tokyo-based lawyer Hiromasa Hasegawa in a recent blog on Kyoto’s revisions.

The revision also comes amidst growing concern in Kyoto about crime in general, and violent crimes that may result from taking illicit photos or video, in particular.

A separate prefectural survey on safety conducted last year showed that fears of home break-ins accounted for the largest share of concern, with 58.4 percent of the 1,957 residents surveyed in June 2013 saying this is what they feared most. However, some 23 percent said that being filmed illicitly was also on their minds, reflecting increased awareness in Kyoto of the problem.

In 2008, Kyoto police sent 32 incidents of illegal filming to the prosecutors, but that figure had increased to 84 cases by 2013. With the new revisions now in place, however, Kyoto has stronger weapons to go after those who would use their cameras for illicit purposes.

Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/05/25/national/kyoto-law-puts-upskirt-photography-focus/#.U4NlOS9ZG2x

"Teens sharing photos of themselves 'praying' for victims of Tohoku disaster cause stir"

Image and text borrowed from Japan Today, 3/14/14.

Last Tuesday marked the third anniversary of the 2011 Tohoku disaster, a day on which tens of thousands of people lost their lives and many more were displaced, never able to return to their homes. At 2:46 p.m., the exact moment the quake struck three years ago, people across the country stopped to take part in nationwide moment of silence.

Teens across the land also took a moment to pay their respects that day, although the actions of a few were perhaps a little misguided. Soon after the moment of silence, photos emerged online showing kids “praying” inside “purikura” sticker photo booths, which were quickly shared and “favorited”.

Internet commenters reacted angrily to the images, calling them disrespectful and deploring how the smartphone generation feels the need to broadcast almost everything they do.

Although some people, busy as they were, went about their day oblivious to the fact that the moment of silence was being held, the vast majority stopped what they were doing and took a few seconds to reflect. Even on the streets of Tokyo, hundreds of people came to a sudden halt as memorial services were broadcast on big screens.

Not long afterwards, a number of photos appeared online showing teens supposedly praying and showing their respects for the dead. Many included messages such as “in memory of those who lost their lives on March 11, 2011,” and seemed quite genuine. Others less so.

Naturally, the online community was both surprised and angered to see such photos, which were mostly taken in “purikura” photo booths, which require manual operation and for the participants to strike a suitable pose while the machine takes their photo. They’re also almost always located within noisy video arcades, begging the question of whether these kids were really taking their reflection seriously.

Despite being daubed with the kanji characters for silent prayer (黙祷), few netizens believed that these shared displays of respect for the dead were genuine, and found the very idea of taking photos of oneself during a time like this, not least then sharing them online, in very poor taste.

“What on earth are these people doing sharing photos on Twitter of themselves praying? What on earth is wrong with Japan?” wrote one of the many angry Twitter users in response to the photos, adding that surely the money spent on taking the photo would have been better given to a relief fund to help those affected by the disaster.

The majority of the comments made online, however, were far blunter:

“Man, this pisses me off.”
“Idiots.”
“These kids have zero morals.”
“Are they even praying properly?”
“Purikura is anything but silent prayer.”
“Silent prayer isn’t some event you know!”

In fairness, we’re sure that at least some of the kids who took photos like these genuinely meant well and that their hearts were in the right place. They’re young and, what with growing up in the age of smartphones and selfies, by sharing their photos in this way they may have felt that they were showing their respects appropriately. Rather, it is down to their teachers, parents and even older siblings to tell them that while social media can be a wonderful tool for spreading a message, there are times when we should put down our phones and appreciate the gravity of the situation, and certainly not just for show.

Stepping into a purikura booth to document your prayers for the dead is most definitely not a good idea. But then again, sharing photos of yourself supposedly passionately kissing your boy/girlfriend, or taking time out from “having an amazing time with the best friends ever” to Tweet or update your Facebook status with is perhaps just as idiotic, so maybe we’re not really setting the best example?

Source: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/teens-sharing-photos-of-themselves-praying-for-victims-of-tohoku-disaster-cause-stir

Not Japan, but... "Massachusetts Court Rules Upskirt Photos Not a Crime"

We discuss the ethics of doing fieldwork and photographing in Japan quite often at VAOJ. Protecting the privacy of our informants/collaborators is of utmost concern. An extreme example of not respecting privacy that appears quite often in the Japanese media is up-skirt photo taking. It would seem to be common sense that up-skirt photos are a breach of privacy - isn't that why we call them private parts? Taking such photos is against the law in Japan. But apparently this is not the case in many parts of the United States... Read on. Story from NBC News.com, March 6, 2014:

Massachusetts lawmakers are pledging to pass a law against "upskirting" after the state's highest court ruled that a man who took cellphone photos up the skirts of female subway riders did not violate existing statutes.

Michael Robertson was arrested in an August 2010 sting operation, and a lower court upheld the charges against him.

But the Supreme Judicial Court ruled Wednesday that because the women were not nude or partially undressed — requirements under the state's Peeping Tom laws — Robertson was not committing a crime.

"A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is 'partially nude,' no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing," the court said in its ruling.

State law "does not apply to photographing (or videotaping or electronically surveilling) persons who are fully clothed and, in particular, does not reach the type of upskirting that the defendant is charged with attempting to accomplish on the MBTA," the court said.

Prosecutors had argued that the current law could be interpreted to make upskirt pictures illegal. Now that the court has weighed in, they want lawmakers to amend the statute.

Politicians in both houses of the legislature said that would happen.

"The ruling of the Supreme Judicial Court is contrary to the spirit of the current law," Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo said. "The House will begin work on updating our statutes to conform with today's technology immediately."

Senate President Therese Murray said she was "stunned and disappointed" with the ruling.

"We have fought too hard and too long for women's rights to take the step backward," Murray said in a statement. "I am in disbelief that the courts would come to this kind of decision and outraged at what it means for women's privacy and public safety."

In the meantime, transit police may not be able to make any arrests for upskirting.

Some other states, such as Nebraska, are also moving to rewrite statutes that now apply only if the person being photographed is undressed or on private property.

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/massachusetts-court-rules-upskirt-photos-not-crime-n45441

"Iwate tries to crack down on upskirt photos taken with cell phones"

From today's Japan Today:

The northern prefecture of Iwate has Japanese Internet commentators furious over a recent proposal by police there to criminalize pointing a cell phone toward someone if it is suspected the would be photographer is trying to get an upskirt picture.

Police say that they want to “expand” their approach to catching perverts sneaking naughty photos, but critics say this proposed legislation will turn any man with a cell phone into a potential criminal, regardless of whether their finger goes anywhere near the shutter button.

Currently under Iwate law, taking photos of someone’s underwear without their knowledge is only illegal if law enforcement have proof that a picture is taken. In the day and age of easily deletable digital pictures, police say that it is too easy for these panty paparazzi to erase the evidence. Moreover, with smartphone apps that can silence the shutter sound (a big no-no in Japan), they complain too many people are getting away with upskirt photography. So police want to be able to prosecute someone for proof that they intended to take a picture, even if there is no physical evidence.

Netizens were quick to criticize the proposed law, which will come up for vote in the prefectural assembly next March. Otherwise innocent people would be unfairly arrested for just having a smartphone and perhaps staring too long in someone’s direction, they said. Worried about their freedom to brandish a camera phone freely without judgement, netizens said they would think twice about any upcoming travel plans to the northern prefecture if the law is passed.

—I don’t want to get arrested, so I’ll be avoiding Iwate from now on.

—Well, I didn’t really want to go there anyway.

According to a story by the Yomiuri Shimbun, the police will be taking public opinion until Dec 6 and then they will draft the final legislation based on what they hear from the people. Netizens have plenty to tell the Iwate authorities and hoped they would think twice before the prefecture becomes infamous for having the most upskirt pic convictions nationwide.

—I totally understand why, but all this will do is arrest innocent people.

—How will they prove it? Will it just be the word of the accuser against the accused? Sounds dubious.

—From far enough away, doesn’t any picture taken have the possibility of being pointed toward someone’s underwear. Where will the line be drawn?

Are the police justified in their call to crackdown on covert photography? Or are the netizens right and will this law create “criminals” whose only crime is pointing a smartphone in the wrong direction?

Source: http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/iwate-tries-to-crack-down-on-upskirt-photos-taken-with-cell-phones

UPDATE: See also "Cop busted for filming up skirt of student on escalator" (Japan Today 11/25/13) http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/cop-busted-for-filming-up-skirt-of-student-on-escalator

Local Matsuri IV: People

While photographers recognize that a subject’s uncertainty about the use of a picture is often the source of interactional tension, they are for the most part sufficiently confident about the harmlessness of their photographing (to subjects) or its importance (to themselves, or to “public information”) and sufficiently interested in carrying on doing it that consent is not so much to be reckoned with among subjects as dispensed with (Henderson 1988: 92).

I like a bit of privacy myself, especially when it is so scarce a commodity these days. But I never take embarrassing pictures of people on the street and I always try and respect them, communicate with them and share my photos with them if I can. Japanese people are on the whole very cool with this. And if they don’t want their picture taken, 95 times out of 100 they just turn the other way (Goodrich, September 22, 2009).

It’s not easy taking photos of people in public that you don’t know. This is the challenge of street photography. One might ask what is the purpose of such an endeavor? To capture interesting characters and/or representatives of Japanese culture? Does this really add to the sociology of Japan?

It was my intention to walk around the matsuri and take pictures of people enjoying the festival. I especially wanted to photograph people wearing brightly colored summer yukata. I found, however, that people were busy having fun and I didn’t feel right interrupting them. I did ask a few yukata-clad women if I could photograph them but they all refused. And I understood. After all, who was this foreign guy with a camera, and what would he be doing with the pictures? As I walked slowly through the masses I felt as if I was some sort of perverse voyeur stalking prey.

But once again the mixed blessing of being a foreigner kicked in. People began calling out to me in simple English and were surprised when I responded in Japanese. During these short/fun interactions I asked if I could take their photographs and they answered by flashing the peace sign along with a big smile. Some people wanted to take my picture (as if I were some sort of celebrity?).

I also found I could take pictures of people working at food stalls if I bought something. People were also willing to be photographed if I asked a question about the festival or had an extended conversation with them.

For the visual anthropologist a bit of street photography might be an early phase of fieldwork. The camera can be a tool for creating interactions and building rapport. And of course the photographs are data, and a good source for reciprocity (giving photos to the people you photograph). Visual anthropology is all about long-term collaboration and negotiation in the areas of privacy and representation. But perhaps we are getting too serious here (when you do want to get serious, click here for more on the ethics of public photography in Japan). We shouldn’t lose sight of the topic, the Local Matsuri. We have enjoyed the mikoshi, the evening activities, the food and now let’s enjoy the people.

The next post completes this VAOJ arc - Local Matsuri V: くわしく.

References:

Goodrich, Alfie. Japanorama Blog. "Faces of Tokyo: street photography in the megalopolis." Posted on September 22, 2009. http://japanorama.co.uk/2009/09/22/faces-of-tokyo-street-photography-in-the-megalopolis/

Henderson, Lisa. "Access and consent in public photography." Image ethics: The moral rights of subjects in photographs, film and television (1988): 91-107.

Visual Anthropology of Japan, Local Matsuri I: The Mikoshi, posted July 30, 2013.

Visual Anthropology of Japan, Local Matsuri II: Evening Activities, posted July 31, 2013.

Visual Anthropology of Japan, Local Matsuri III: Tamago Senbei, posted August 1, 2013.

Visual Anthropology of Japan, Ethics of Visual Anthropology in Japan - Part Seven: The Guidelines, posted February 13, 2009.

CINEMA TYPHOON @ TKU2013 “Filming ‘Fukushima’: Diverse Memories, Multiple Representations”

This year’s “Cinema Typhoon” will present three films on the theme of people’s memories and filmic representations. Funahashi Atushi’s “Nuclear Nation”, Fujiwara Toshi’s “No Man’s Zone” and Ian Thomas Ash’s “A2″ deal with the ordinary people’s lives and feelings devastated by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station’s accident in March 2011, each of which provokes us to ponder on individual processes in which private memories are transformed into public representations, and representations recreate memories.

Only a short while after the 3.11 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear ‘triple disaster’, the first filmmakers ventured to Fukushima and the Tohoku disaster areas to document the devastating effects on people’s lives. Since then, an astonishing array of documentary as well as feature films about the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster has been produced, constituting what has poignantly been called an ‘all-but-instant subgenre’ (D. Lim). Why are so many films made about the Fukushima nuclear disaster? What are the motivations of the filmmakers? In which ways might these films participate in the production of a public ‘Fukushima’ memory? How can they stem forgetting, when ‘disaster fatigue’ has already set in? Do these films affect, or seek to influence, anti-nuclear thinking and movements nationally and internationally? The panel discussion, including the directors Funahashi and Fujiwara, aims to address these and other questions pertinent to the production, screening, and reception of films concerned with the social consequences of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. The discussion will be complemented with screening a small but fine selection of relevant films.Suggested Film Screenings (all of these available with English subtitles):Nuclear Nation/Futaba kara tōku hanarete (dir. Funahashi Atsushi)No Man’s Zone/Mujin chitai (dir. Fujiwara Toshi)Fukushima: Memories of the Lost Landscape/Sōma Kanka (dir. Matsubayashi Jojyu)Odayaka na nichijō (dir. Uchida Nobuteru)[Language: English and Japanese]

Dates: July 13-14, 2013
Place: Room B201 in Bldg. 2 at Tokyo Keizai Daigaku Access Map: http://www.tku.ac.jp/access/kokubunji/
Campus Map: http://www.tku.ac.jp/campus/institution/kokubunji/

For more details: http://cultural-typhoon.com/2013/en/cinema-typhoon/

"Etiquette for taking photos in public"

Taking photographs in public has long been an interest here at VAOJ under the guise of the Shooting Culture in Japan Project. Today the The Japan News published a general and useful essay on the subject:

With the spread of high-quality digital cameras, even on cell phones, anyone can enjoy photography. However, it is important to give sufficient consideration to the subjects of images, whether people or objects, to avoid causing discomfort.

A 35-year-old female company employee in Osaka Prefecture took a photo of a display at a variety store with her smartphone because she wanted to decorate her own room in a similar fashion.

But the store’s employee warned her not to take the shot.

“I stopped instantly after the warning and apologized to the employee. Are such photos really forbidden?” the woman asked the Yomiuri Shimbun photographer.

Norihiko Matsumoto, senior director of the Japan Professional Photographers Society, contributed to a book on photography etiquette. “When you take a photo inside a shop, you should get permission from the staff upfront. Don’t secretly photograph things,” he said.

If staff forbid photography in a store, you should heed their warnings, Matsumoto added.

When you photograph a person or an item, you could be implicated in violating portrait rights or copyright.

“Unless you’re prepared to accept the risk of legal action, it’s wise to follow the other party’s instructions,” he said.

Are there any tips for getting the go-ahead when asking for permission to take a picture?

Matsumoto advises, “It’s best to thoroughly explain your reason for taking the photo.”

You should say what motivated you to want to photograph the subject. “Because it’s a nice arrangement” in the case of a dish display, for example, or “The way the outfit is put together looks fashionable” in the case of clothing.

In doing so, you put the other party more at ease and increase the likelihood he or she will permit the photo, Matsumoto says. He also said it is necessary to thank the person after taking the picture.

Additionally, people should be more careful about posting photos online, such as on blogs and social networking sites where the photos are highly public.

Another female company employee in her 30s knows that a photo of her and her friend at an event was posted on Facebook without her permission. She has yet to lodge a complaint with Facebook about the incident, but she said, “Just the thought that many strangers are looking at my photo makes me feel uncomfortable.”

In such cases, the photographer must obtain the subject’s consent to post photographs online.

“People should make sure to tell their subjects they are being photographed and ask about uploading any shots on the Internet before they are taken,” said Fumihiro Shimakura of the Japan Network Security Association, a corporate nonprofit organization.

“Sometimes people won’t agree. When they seem unsure about allowing the photo to be posted, it’s better to avoid the action altogether,” Shimakura said.

The same can be said for group photos, in which cases it is often difficult to obtain the consent of each subject.

Additionally, you should not post photos of anime characters or celebrities. Because these photos could be copied without permission, you run the risk of getting into trouble.

As the number of digital cameras equipped with global positioning systems is increasing, the locations where photos were taken may be included in online postings.

“When you take a photo at home, turn off the GPS and don’t post your private information. These are basic guidelines everyone should follow,” he added.

Source: http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0000268321