Thumbsucker... London Closet Case?

[squashNstretch]

My gf shares our common interest... She was riding the tubes today and saw this girl. My gf pulled out her iphone and sneakily snapped this pic.

EDITED: Picture is being held for approval from his Highness Sir DD. (repaid1)

[AutieAB]

If you rode the tube every day, you'd be a thumb-sucking nervous wreck too

(j/k )

[Rosy]

Adult thumb sucker are relatively common... there's even a website dedicated to it! http://www.thumbsuckingadults.com/ It doesn't necessarilly mean that someone is ab/dl just because they suck their thumb. It's a relatively benign thing to do. For instance, I wouldn't be comfortable revealing I am into ab/dl stuff to very many people, but I would happily suck my thumb, because I don't consider it a sexual thing. It's just something I do.

[babyvr6]

I would suggest blurring her face or something. Otherwise you could be facing some sort of litigation.

[Squidgy]

aha, so THAT'S where the neighbour's cat went!

[Forced2wet]

I thought the weather had got better in London, but look how many inches of snow have settled on that thumb suckers head

[turtlepins]

Aw! How cute!

[curiositykilledthecat]

Aw! How cute!

Poor girl is now our cannon fodder. I never got thumbsucking, now gimme a binky and I'm good.

[Bettypooh]

....Poor girl is now our cannon fodder....

I wondered when someone would see it this way Without an identifiable piccie I don't think it matters, but when you identify someone without their consent, you're outing them even if they were in public when the pic was taken. The general rule at many conventions and/or meetings of people who may not want their piccie taken is to ask first and be sure you don't have any unknowing bystanders in the shot

How would you feel if by chance your diaper was exposed, you didn't know it, and someone took a pic without your knowledge which got posted online and everyone you know found it?

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, and expect retribution if you do something unto to them they don't want to have done

Bettypooh

[Snugglebug]

I gotta say, I agree with Bettypooh: not cool to post this pic in a public forum without the lady's consent.

[Guest Saya]

just out of curious what would happen if you find out this person is on here? It is actully illegal in britian to take a photo of someone without there conscent. I would suggest a blur atleast to cover the site.

[OMFG]

I feel so ignored sometimes,

You have to prove it is a private act by your own definition.

I'd be inclined to think that if she felt the act was terribly private, she wouldn't be doing it obviously on a london tube...

[babyvr6]

Though you gotta be careful, British Privacy law is a bitch XD

I would suggest blurring her face or something. Otherwise you could be facing some sort of litigation.

I feel so ignored sometimes,

You have to prove it is a private act by your own definition.

^All of this, get on it. You have been warned.

[curiositykilledthecat]

^All of this, get on it. You have been warned.

In the United States as long as the photo is taken on public grounds it's fair game, with the exception of television, where you need consent forms signed. If I am a news anchor and you are in my shot, you can't complain.

[OMFG]

Yes we have that as well, but that's different.

There is implied consent when photos are for private usage or for media usage. For example if the picture came from a news report taken on the tube it is fair usage, if it's a holiday snap for a photo album, it's fair usage.

Private photos on public grounds that are not intended to 'out' a person as such are also fair game, so long as the material in the shot is not illegal or risqué (for example, if someone was naked on a beach and you took a photo, that would be an infringement.) Same although untested would possibly apply to thumb sucking as it's a purely private act and there is no implied consent.

I am failing to see anything online that supports your stance that it is illegal to take or post pictures of people in public in Britain.

From answers.com

Because of the excesses of some elements of the media and the unethical behaviour of a few photographers, privacy is an ongoing subject of debate in Britain, with high-profile cases (usually involving tabloid newspapers) fought out expensively in the courts. This is because, at present, the UK does not have specific laws preventing the taking of photographs that infringe a person's privacy.

There is an increased trend toward protection of a person's privacy, but:

A. it seems to be more concerned with the media

B. it seems to pertain to cases where the person has a reasonable expectation to privacy

C. in case where the person is in public, it seems more relevant to children, namely the children of celebrities

I did not take this photo of her in her home or backyard or using a telephoto lens while she was alone on a beach. It was in a crowded tube. I am not selling the photo to the local news. She is not a child. Even if one of these conditions were met, it still does not appear to be illegal, although she might be able to sue for damages.

I am interested in seeing what laws you're referring to. Could you please provide a link?

[Guest Saya]

Eh I take my statments back actully, after some research its not actully illegal to take photo's on a public scene trains are public therfor its not illegal. Sorry to the OP for my claims.

[AutieAB]

Eh I take my statments back actully, after some research its not actully illegal to take photo's on a public scene trains are public therfor its not illegal. Sorry to the OP for my claims.

It's not illegal to take a photo in public in Britain* because there's no expectation of privacy in public spaces. That said, uploading an identifiable photo to the web for all to see and making suggestions that said person has a particular kink/fetish is clearly opening the OP up for accusations of slander, shoudl the woman in the photo realise it's posted and feel so inclined to act on it (yes, slander, not libel as you might expect)... Further, you may find that a tube train is not actually a public place but you're still permitted to take photos there (by their own regs) so long as no flash or tripod are used. Further still, just because it's legal doesn't mean you won't get your collar felt for doing it. There's a growing trend in recent years, particularly in central London, of police and PCSO's unlawfully stopping photography in public places for vague or outright invalid reasons but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

*Apart from certain locations protected by anti-terror laws. Standing in a public park taking photos of the neighbouring nuclear power station, for example, would likely get you in trouble. Also, Scotland may be different, they normally are on these kinds of things

IANAL btw

[OMFG]

I wondered when someone would see it this way Without an identifiable piccie I don't think it matters, but when you identify someone without their consent, you're outing them even if they were in public when the pic was taken. The general rule at many conventions and/or meetings of people who may not want their piccie taken is to ask first and be sure you don't have any unknowing bystanders in the shot

How would you feel if by chance your diaper was exposed, you didn't know it, and someone took a pic without your knowledge which got posted online and everyone you know found it?

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you, and expect retribution if you do something unto to them they don't want to have done

Bettypooh

I am the photographer here, and to answer your question, I think there is a big difference in engaging in behavior at a private function such as a convention/meeting and engaging in it in a completely public venue such as the London Tubes. I don't wear diapers in public because I view it as a private act, so the circumstance you've asked about would never happen. She outs herself by sucking her thumb in public. All my iPhone did was capture the moment for posterity. I maintain that if she felt her thumbsucking was private and shameful, she wouldn't have been doing it in a tube. Frankly, I'd be more concerned about the sheer number of germs she is exposing herself to by sucking her thumb after passing through tube stations and potentially touching things. The London Underground is a vile petri dish of the very worst of human filth, simply due to the volume of people that pass through it daily. She would be well off to consider some hand sanitizer if she insists on sucking her thumb in the underground after potentially touching any surface in the entire tube system.

Eh I take my statments back actully, after some research its not actully illegal to take photo's on a public scene trains are public therfor its not illegal. Sorry to the OP for my claims.

It sparked me to read up on the subject, and I learned stuff, so I think sNs would not be opposed if I said thank you.

[Aleia]

Legal or illegal, it certainly isn't ethical. Would you want somebody to post a picture of you absentmindedly picking your nose on a public internet forum?

[Guest Saya]

Would you want somebody to post a picture of you absentmindedly picking your nose on a public internet forum

I would laugh at it me personally.

[Angela Bauer]

As an experienced, licensed and hard-working attorney it always fascinates me to read the opinions of others concerning the legal process. I note that so far nobody licensed to practice law in the UK has expressed an opinion. Trust me, until a client is willing to pay me I am not going to write an opinion about the subject photo.

I will also be fascinated in the future, when the apparent law student DD members are licensed and have practical litigation experience, to learn if their opinions change.

My firm only does corporate law. My general advice is to not use any image of an identifiable person, object or place without a valid release. Deadline new publications generally have greater protection against defamation of character torts and invasion of privacy torts than would a long-lead publication. The whole body of law and opinion relating to new forms of communication, such as websites, is being formed more slowly than snail-mail.

Things get complicated when an image is photographed in one country and up-loaded to a server located in a different country. In this case, OMFG admits taking the photo in the UK and does not mention obtaining a release. SquashNstretch admits up-loading the photo to DD onto a server in the USA. Quiz to the law students: Do the USA or UK laws apply? Second question, especially to the licensed attorneys: Who will pay the retainer to litigate this issue?

Free opinion from Angela: In California OMFG had the right to take the photo. However, selling that photo, while not a crime, would expose OMFG to litigation based on the subject's right to control publicity.

If one of my clients owned and controlled this website my advice would be to delete that photo because there is no release held by the photographer. Without such a signed valid release posting the photo appears to violate the DD TOS and probably the TOS of the server hosting firm.

Please remember generic legal opinions written without a retainer are not always useful.

[Steveorstephanie]

Well said Abrera. I just think that if it was me who had been photographed, I wouldn't like the picture posted on a "fetish" site. It could suggest that I, the subject, was involved in the fetish when I might not be. Even if I was into the said fetish, I would not be happy about being "outed."

I would like to suggest that the photo is removed and then our community is seen to be responsible.

[Aleia]

Well said Abrera. I just think that if it was me who had been photographed, I wouldn't like the picture posted on a "fetish" site. It could suggest that I, the subject, was involved in the fetish when I might not be. Even if I was into the said fetish, I would not be happy about being "outed."

I would like to suggest that the photo is removed and then our community is seen to be responsible.

I agree. Not only is it potentially embarrassing--misunderstandings have been known to destroy careers--but it would also be more than a little creepy to have your picture posted and being ogled at on a site that is very sexual in nature.

I'd like to believe the ABDL community doesn't condone lassoing unwitting strangers into this fetish.

[Repaid1]

Okay at first I thought it was a bad idea to post the pic, then I took the argument that it wasn't breaking any laws and harmless. Finally our own Legal Eagle Angela (Hello and welcome back from down under) states that she would recommend that it be taken off. So I am putting the first post on suspension on the theory that perhaps DD himself hasn't seen this thread in it's entirety. If he however deems it appropriate to this site, a simple click will undo my action.

On a side note, it looked like she was more biting her nail, other then sucking her thumb. Well at least to me.

EDIT: Okay that didn't work as it locked the thread for approval, soooooo... I removed the picture and have it stored to replace it if deemed to do so.

[Steveorstephanie]

It's good to see common sense has prevailed, and the pic removed. I admit it was cute, and the girl in it looked great, but there are limits. I personally think it was the right decision to remove it. How many of us here keep our fetish secret? Ask yourself how you would feel if someone let the cat out of your bag. Or even took a photo of you doing something innocent and published it with a different meaning.

Let's have fun, but keep things within our community. Who knows, one day, I might find someone to share my life in this lifestyle, and I don't want it to be a lifestyle that doesn't respect others in their privacy.