Well, to play the devil's advocate... Let's suppose a female got drunk at the Octoberfest and exposed their breasts. And, let's suppose the arrested photographer snapped a picture of the topless female. Now, I don't claim to be a genius at law (etc.) but my understanding is that what happens in public is "free territory". If someone decided to strip in public and had several pictures take of them, that's their fault. Now, let's alter it a bit. Let's suppose the photographer used a zoom lens and the full capture was nothing but breats. Is this (somehow) "more" illegal? And, changing the "facts" again, what if the female was was wearing a sexy peasent top? Taking a (closeup) photo of the top (and her breasts beneath it) is illegal? What about just taking a photo (portrait) of the female from the waist up who is wearing a sexy top? Is that "over the legal line"? Then, where was the Octoberfest occurring? On private property or the public streets? According to the article... "You're committing an offense if, a) you're taking a picture of a person who hasn't given you consent to do so, and b) that picture is for the sexual gratification of any person," I don't know how you read (or interpret it) but because the conjunction used is the word, "and", it sounds like both "violations" need to have occurred. That's, not having permission AND that the picture is for sexual gratification of ANY person! Personally, I'd like to hear the outcome of this case because, IF, for example, this man was taking closeup shots of, say, women in tight jeans and cropping the whole shot to just the rear of the jeans, and he is found guilty because someone deciding his guilt or innocence has decided he did it for sexual gratification, then we had all better quit taking pictures of humans unless they are modeling for us with permission (etc.). Personally, any judge that can assuredly proclaim that this man went home and, hmmmmm, masturbated to the images (for an example) is one hell of a judge! But, if that is where the law is going, then guys who get off (smile) on high-heel shoes on women can also be prosecuted if they are sneaking/taking dirty/filthy pictures of shoes! And, I guess this law extends to photographing sheep, too (LOL)! PS: And, just what IS the legal definition of "sexual gratification"? Does it mean orgasm? Does it mean getting "turned on"? How does one prove an image provided sexual gratification?