However, whether the photo met all definitions of "upskirting" was debatable. Merriam-Webster defines "upskirting" as follows:
[...] the act or action of surreptitiously taking a photograph or shooting a video of a person's genital area by aiming a recording device (such as a camera or cellphone) up the person's skirt, dress, etc.
The in-question photo wasn't taken surreptitiously, but rather in a public setting. Also, no genitalia were visible and the camera wasn't "aimed ... up the person's skirt, dress, etc."
This is so bull. First, public setting/surreptitiously: If a man on an escalator takes a photo of a woman a in front of him, that's in public setting no? Regarding "surreptitiously", they were literally intending to take a photo of her in that way; you wouldn't do that openly, you would be taking it surreptitiously. Both surreptitiously and public setting can be true at the same time and are true in this case.
Second: "No genitalia were visible". Certainly, but if we're going to go by Merriam-Webster, they say "genital area", not "genital"
Third: "up". By their own admission, "viewers can see up her skirt".
Fourth, the precise definitions of these types of words vary by source. For example, Wikipedia defines it as:
Upskirting or upskirt photography is the practice of taking photographs or videos under a person's skirt or kilt,[2] capturing an image or video of the crotch area, showing underwear such as panties, and sometimes genitalia. An "upskirt" is a photograph, video, or illustration which incorporates such an image, although the term may also be used to refer to the area of the body inside a skirt, usually from below and while being worn.
Surely, by this definition, even if you think it is debatable whether what JKR did fits the M-W definition of upskirt, surely this definition covers it? In fact, they even include a photo in which someone is in a similar position to Wallace as an example.
If we're getting pedantic,
Cambridge defines as: "(of a photograph or video) taken from a position that allows someone to look up inside a woman's dress or skirt"
Oxford English Dictionary (requires subscription) defines as: "Designating or relating to a photograph or video that has been taken from an angle so as to look up a woman's skirt or dress, typically surreptitiously in a public place for the purpose of sexual gratification."
Collins defines as: "indicating a photograph taken, usually without consent, underneath a woman's skirt or dress"
The Northumbria Police Dept in the UK writes: (source)
’Upskirting’ is an informal term for a type of voyeurism when someone uses equipment like a camera or mobile phone to take photos or videos underneath a person’s clothes, without their permission.
...
Upskirting is an offence whether it's done for sexual pleasure or to humiliate or upset someone.
If we're going to get so pedantic on the exact wordings of definitions (which, fine, go ahead, I have done the same), then it is absolutely biased to only use one definition from one dictionary, especially if that dictionary's definition is the outlier -- M-W's is the only one that requires "surreptitiously" and (by Snope's misinterpretation) "genitalia" (though OED does say 'typically' for 'surreptitiously').
blakekathryn
pixelskylines
theartofmadeline
vaporwave
gummygunk
gamechangershow
romaincrisis
