Upskirt

The primary ethical and legal issue relating to upskirt photography in the United States is the reasonable expectation of privacy, even in a public place.

For the first time, many women felt comfortable exposing their thighs, whether on the beach in a swimsuit or in street wear, and were even relaxed when in some situations their underwear would be visible.

However, some of these images can end up being more widely distributed or being posted onto the Internet without the knowledge and consent of the subject, for example as revenge porn following a relationship breakup.

All jurisdictions within Australia have passed laws making it illegal to take upskirt photos in public places without the person's consent.

[8] In 2010, an elderly man had his camera confiscated and was fined 12 day-fines for the act of public obscenity (which was thought to be the closest match in the criminal code), having taken dozens of upskirt photos in a shopping centre in Turku.

[12] In June 2023, as a part of the sex crime reform, Japanese parliament passed a new law that replaces the prefecture-dependent implementations of Trouble Prevention Ordinances.

[17] Some South Korean lawyers suggest that posting videos of street events such as Halloween on social media may constitute a sex crime.

It is defined as creating images of or operating equipment to view genitals, buttocks or underwear beneath clothing where they would not normally be visible, for the purpose of sexual gratification or to cause humiliation, alarm or distress.

The maximum sentence for the offence is two years' imprisonment and in the more serious sexual cases those convicted are added to the Violent and Sex Offender Register.

[25][26] Speaking on the government's behalf in the House of Lords, Baroness Vere of Norbiton said the legislation would also protect men wearing kilts.

At the federal level the United States enacted the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act of 2004 to punish those who intentionally make an image of an individual's private areas without consent, when the person knew the subject had an expectation of privacy.

[36] In September 2014, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals voided the state's statute against "improper photography or visual recording" including "upskirt" photos, saying its wording was overly broad.

The court's opinion stated: "Protecting someone who appears in public from being the object of sexual thoughts seems to be the sort of 'paternalistic interest in regulating the defendant's mind' that the First Amendment was designed to guard against.