|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| alexmol |
Posted - 01/03/2006 : 5:31:54 PM
With the massification of cell camera phones naturists have been confronted with people using them to take unwanted pictures on nude beaches. 
It's making naturists avoid public lands and beaches and becoming more difficult to get new people into this lifestyle. 
What can we do ?
Suggestions on how to deal with camera phones on nude beaches would be helpful.
Alexandre in Portugal |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| nudiarist |
Posted - 07/14/2009 : 07:25:36 AM
Smile and get over it. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public beach. What is this obsession we have with photographic images? When people have sex, it's wonderful and fulfilling, but when a picture is taken of the sex act, it's pornography. When a nudist or naturist goes to a beach, it's natural and free, but when someone takes a photograph, the image is considered invasive and exploitative. I think it goes back to primitive cultures, where a photograph was considered to be evil, somehow stealing the soul of the subject.
We're getting to the point where we are photographed wherever we go. It is estimated that a typical person working in London is photographed 300 times per day. Google Earth takes people all over the planet to our front doors. And how many photographs of nude people are on the Internet right this moment? I guarantee you the number would be greater than the populations of many countries.
Not many people know that some colleges used to require their students to pose for nude photographs. The story is here: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/21/us/nude-photos-are-sealed-at-smithsonian.html
The culture shifted since then, and now the popular consensus is that all depictions of the nude body are somehow sexual. At the time those school photos were taken, they were considered scientific and acceptable, and today they are "sealed" and somehow potentially damaging to the subjects, some of whom are apparently prominent people.
Recently the government backed down on the full body-image scanners at airports which essentially provided a nude photograph of people to be examined by security personnel. People are willing to be questioned, patted down, passed through magnetometers, expose their identities and backgrounds, but when it comes to being seen naked, well, that's an invasion of privacy.
I'll bet that in this age of electronic imaging that close to half of all Americans are in possession of a nude photo of themselves, or of someone they know. Teens are taking nude photos of themselves at such a high rate that parents and authorities are falling all over themselves wondering what to do.
There's no privacy anymore. Technology has killed the concept. Unless we decide to return to log cabins in the wilderness, we need to get over the fact that whatever we do, wherever we go, someone is watching and recording our actions.
nudiarist |
| Nudejoe |
Posted - 07/13/2009 : 11:04:24 PM
The worst part about technology is that it is getting better. Cell phones are getting smaller and the picture quality is getting better. Now you have cameras that can even shoot video.
We usually tell people who are using cameras that they should get permission of anyone that they want to photograph and if they do not, we contact the life guards to get them to leave the area. |
| n/a |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 09:15:02 AM
It's not just cell phone cameras you have to be concerned about. There are teeny little spycam things that people can conceal just about anywhere, including beach bags, etc. There have also been cases where people have hidden them in public restrooms or changing rooms. The pictures end up on sleazy websites.
I don't think it's possible to guarantee that you won't be photographed, if you're anywhere in a public place. |
| FlCpl4NewdFun |
Posted - 08/02/2008 : 10:21:54 PM
There should be no expectation of privacy in public places period! It's unfortunate and I totally disagree with it, but it's a sad fact of todays society and technology. The likely result will be to drive nudists off public lands and into to private clubs.
Whether this is a good or bad thing is still up in the air. On the positive, it will hep the revenue of the small independents. The negative is it will keep nudism on the lunatic fringe of society. On a recent trip to Haluover I saw cameras everywhere and I don't suspect they will go away anytime soon. Thus, my wife and I will stick to the private clubs where local rules and enforcement rule the day.
For those of you who could care less about your image being taken and used for less than honorable purposes, more power to you. I wish I had that level of independence. But the truth is, I'm still not confident that society accepts nudism as a mainstream activity so am a little weary of the intent of anyone at a nudist resort or beach sneaking a quick shot with a camera. My wife and I take pictures of each other all the time, but it is in plain view of everyone and we never do so when others can be seen in the background. And we never do so with a cell phone camera, the quality is awful. Cell phones cameras at nudist resorts are for covert shots, not legitimate naturist photography!
Cheers!
|
| sailormandave |
Posted - 08/02/2008 : 6:10:05 PM
One thing that adds to the complexity of understand the legalities is that different people posting here are from different locals and different laws may apply. In the United States, copyright law and license agreements are very straightforward and the same in all states. However, issues related to release (permission) can vary greatly. This is because different states and even different municipalities may have different laws regarding rights or privacy and associated issues. Usually in the U.S., people don't have expectations of privacy in public places, but this may not always be true. What is also important to understand, is that it's usually not taking a picture that is illegal but rather how the images are used that are considered to break someone's rights. This is when something private is made public, someone's character is defamed or they are wrongly associated with something. There are many situations where an image may need a release for one use, but not another. News, commentary, education and art often do not require a release.
While one can make some generalizations, one really needs to be familiar with the local laws. The fact a release hasn't been signed doesn't necessarily mean the images can't legally be used. An image which isn't considered to have broken someone's rights in one situation, might be with a different use or different location. The fact that light reflecting off of someone has passed through a camera lens and been captured, rarely breaks any law. (Though may in some situations)
|
| Digital_Cowboy |
Posted - 05/17/2008 : 1:40:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by McNigel
You just have to accept that it's perfectly legal for somebody to take photographs in a public area. In fact it's probably preferable if they don't ask your permission.
Photographs taken in a public place can be used for any purpose, but the people featured must not be misrepresented. So if the picture of you on a public beach turns up advertising a swingers club, then you have rights.
If you give permission to take a photo, you could be implying that you surrender these rights.
Whatever, I really don't see why people get so upset by having their picture taken.
Finally a voice of reason. And IF the photographer asks your permission. Let them know that the ONLY that you will give permission is by signing a model release. One that clearly spells out how the photos will be used.
And to those who are worried about the negative impact that being a nudist might have on you professionally. The answer is simple either come out and announce that you're a nudist, as by doing so you've removed the incentive to "blackmail" or "expose" you. Or stop being a nudist or at the very least stop going places wher you could be recognized.
Live Long and Prosper
Herman |
| McNigel |
Posted - 05/17/2008 : 05:13:35 AM
You just have to accept that it's perfectly legal for somebody to take photographs in a public area. In fact it's probably preferable if they don't ask your permission.
Photographs taken in a public place can be used for any purpose, but the people featured must not be misrepresented. So if the picture of you on a public beach turns up advertising a swingers club, then you have rights.
If you give permission to take a photo, you could be implying that you surrender these rights.
Whatever, I really don't see why people get so upset by having their picture taken. |
| Digital_Cowboy |
Posted - 05/17/2008 : 02:36:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by HappyDaz
McNigel, I knew you were kidding, I went with the joke. Being nude is natural, I think we all agree on that. But to the point that Northwest and prism2525 have made, there are people who have very good reasons to not want nude images of themselves floating around. I'm not one of these people that sees the bad in everything but I believe it's a violation of someone's privacy to take their picture in the nude without their consent. Just my two cents.
As has been said we're talking public beaches here. IF you do not want to be photographed in the nude on a public beach DON'T go there.
But don't forget even an innocent picture from a$100.00 a plate fundraiser can be turned into something that it isn't. Does that mean we should "control" takes pictures at fundraisers, or wha access to software like photoshop? Or who scans them into their computers. And uses software to tutn them into something that they're not?
Live Long and Prosper
Herman |
| Digital_Cowboy |
Posted - 05/17/2008 : 02:24:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by prism2525
McNigel, the problem is not that nudism is not natural (it perfectly is) but what's on the photographer's mind is. If he's just collecting snaps to make a naturist beach album I believe it's fine, but if he's a pervert and wants to make erotic scenes out of them (editing perhaps) I surely don't want to end up on such photos.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
"If God had intended mankind to run around naked, surely we'd have been born that way!"
oh, wait.... 
Uh, newsflash, but they can that with Photoshop and pictures of you dressed. People have been doing that for years.
I've seen Jerri (Seven of Nine) Ryan's, Denise Richards, and Stephanie McMann's head on the same PLAYBOY PLAYMATE body.
Even before computers, digital photography and Photoshop people have been taking the faces/heads of pearson a and putting them on the body of person b. It doesn't matter in the least bit that at the time the picture was taken that person a was dressed. It really isn't that hard of a skill to learn.
Live Long and Prosper
Herman |
| Jim in Boston |
Posted - 05/17/2008 : 12:33:01 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
quote:
Originally posted by Jim in Boston
Well, you need to know that we do pay some attention to who is doing the photographing and who they might be with. I have never threatened someone taking pictures of their kids. And I have never felt it necessary to actually take a camera from someone. The camera always goes back in the bag. From the tone of your note I am guessing you might actually be one of those jerks who want to take clit shots on the beach. And if not, if you really think that pressuring those people to put their cameras away, I suggest you reflect on their impact on potential clientele at the hotel on the beach. These cruise ship people are there for a few hours some afternoon. We are not going to allow them to harass the hotel guests.
Jim,
That is NEITHER what was said or implied.quote:
Originally posted by Jim in Boston
Do what we do on Orient Beach, which is to make it clear to the photographer that the camera must go back into its bag, or it is going for a swim.
That says and implies that as soon as you see a camera come out of it’s bag you and/or your band of "stormtroopers" storm over and threaten the person and/or their camera with injury/damage. NOT that you either assess or judge the situation to make sure you’re NOT threatening someone who is innocently taking pictures.
No, I’m someone who can step back and not judge someone who is doing something I don’t understand UNTIL I know what is going on. Not mention to mention that give that I don’t drive but rather ride a bicycle for transportation I am very used to dealing with morons who think it’s there way or the highway.
Even though it looks like you didn’t finish your thought, yes I do think that it’s wrong to pressure/force someone into doing something. Particularly IF we’re talking about a public beach with no posted rules prohibiting the use of cameras.
YOU’RE the one who needs to reflect on the impact that YOUR actions will have on potential clientele at the beach/club/hotel. As YOU are the one who is:
A) creating a hostile environment
B) breaking the law/rules
1) as I’m sure there is something in the beach/club/park/pool/resort rules about threatening or harassing other members/guests
The cruise ship people may be there for a "few hours," BUT your actions can have permanent repercussions. Such as I’ve said the beach, pool or what have you being closed by the authorities because of YOURS and others illegal behavior.
Just because you’ve never been "called on it" neither excuses it or males it "right." and what are you going to do when the day comes that someone DOES "call you on it?" are you prepared to:
A) carry out your threat of throwing the person and/or their camera into the water
B) face the consequences of your actions
1) arrest/lawsuit for the theft or destruction of private property
2) the closure of the beach/club/park/pool/resort, etc. by "the powers that be" or authorities
a) because they’ll correctly presume that "we" can’t behave in civilized manner
IF there are no rules posted prohibiting the use of cameras guess what. YOU are the one who is wrong and can face arrest and/or a possible lawsuit, because of YOUR illegal actions.
And if you feel like someone is doing something that they shouldn’t be doing and you’re NOT an employee all you can do is politely ask ’em to stop, IF they refuse report them to an employee. If you’re an employee then all you can do is ask ’em to stop, if they refuse ask ’em to leave. And IF they still refuse inform them that the police WILL be called and that they’ll be arrested on trespassing as well as any other applicable charges.
But under no circumstances do you as either a private citizen or an employee have the right to threaten another person or their equipment. To do so not only makes all nudists look bad but also has the very real possibility of damaging social nudism.
Such as with the closure of nudist facilities both public and private as well as the passing of more-and-more anti-nudity laws. Stop and think about it for a second. How will you feel IF:
A) you do end up threatening someone who is innocently taking vacation pictures
B) you’re actions and those of those who like you, think that it’s ok to take the law into your own hands and the result is
1) YOU’RE arrested/sued
2) the beach, club, what have you that you’re trying to protect gets closed down because of YOUR actions
3) that because of your actions all nudists are thought to be lawless, anti-social jerks who feel that they can do what they want, when they want, to whom they want
The bottom line is whether as a private citizen or an employee you do NOT ever have the right to take the law into your own hands. And that is exactly what you're doing, and one day it'll come back and bite you, those who think like you, and social nudism in the ass. Do you really want that to happen? Or to be the cause of it happening?
Wow! It really looks like I pushed your buttons here... But let me tell you a bit of a story. One day several years ago, while I was out swimming, my wife saw a couple of guys (apparently from Puerto Rico) sneaking around the beach and taking clit shots. Now, she is about 5'10" and these two guys were quite a bit smaller. She chased them around the beach for several minutes until one of the security guys arrived. He took the film out of their camera (I told you it was some years ago). The fact is that we are not going to allow that kind of picture taking, and all of your legalistic stuff won't cut it unless the local authorities decide to agree with you. I don't think that will happen since the place is in France. If that happens, well, we will accommodate. But for the time being, don't try to take clit shots on Orient Beach unless you have your own lawyer with you. |
| Jim in Boston |
Posted - 05/16/2008 : 10:38:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Digital_Cowboy
To all of you who seem to advocate throwing the cell phone/camera/person into the water. Need to listen to what I believe it was Randy who said that it is THEY (the throwers) who could/would end up in trouble, particularly IF you are in a public place.
Why do you think that the poparatze(sp) can legally ply their trade? Or that the vast majority of businesses can have so many security cameras in place. It's because when your out in public you have no expectation of privacy.
Also stop and think about this for a second, IF as we keep saying, that we have nothing to hide when nude. Why make a big fuss about a cell phone/camera? By making a Big deal" out of cameras/cell phones "we" are encouraging them to try and "get away with it."
Also stop and consider the following:
1) IF you and/or your children were at the local textile park/pool/mall you wouldn't be upset about someone snapping some pictures, right? So why be upset if it happens in a nudist/clothing optional environment? Especially IF you have nothing to hide?
2) Let's also not forget that not all pedophiles get off on the same sort of pictures. Whereas one gets off on nude pictures of children, another does with children in swim suits, and another of them in underwear.
Consider this, we cannot control the thoughts/actions of others, so why assume that they're up to no good? Why not instead assume that they're curious about the lifestyle but are unsure of how to approach the participants. Or assume instead that they're either reporters, or are artists? Now granted it's unlikely that a reporter or artist is likely to use a cell phone to take pictures, but sometimes that may be the only option open to them. Also a good photographer knowing the limitations of his/her equipment can take striking photographs with any cameras. It's just that "newer" cameras will make it easier to do. And of course the reverse is also true i.e. Someone who doesn't know what they're doing is going to take crappy/poor quality pictures no matter what they're using.
The bottom line is that the bigger a deal you make of it, the more they're going to want to do it. IF they are doing nothing more then taking pictures ignore them as you would in any other environment. Also just because someone is doing something you don't like/approve of does NOT give you the right to break the law to stop them. Not too mention the negative image that doing so will leave non-nudists with OF nudists. IF we're to be accepted then we have to work within the law, and NOT act like a bunch of vigilantes, this isn't "the old west" where arguments were settled with either fists or gun play.
Herman
Paparrazzi get away with what they do because they run in packs. Caught in the open they can't invade people's privacy. Now: take the position of a club operator. Some of the clients are in jobs like public school teachers. They are not doing anything wrong but could lose their jobs were their pictures to show up on the web. The risk is about zero, of course, since the pervs (would be paparrazzi) won't admit where they were taking pix, but if you are going to run a nudist resort you want to protect your clients, so you will do what you can to make sure their pictures are not taken. It is not difficult to understand the legalistic arguments here, but you apologists for the pervs can go and make the argument to Victor.
jameslkirtleyjr |
| HappyDaz |
Posted - 05/09/2008 : 08:01:02 AM
McNigel, I knew you were kidding, I went with the joke. Being nude is natural, I think we all agree on that. But to the point that Northwest and prism2525 have made, there are people who have very good reasons to not want nude images of themselves floating around. I'm not one of these people that sees the bad in everything but I believe it's a violation of someone's privacy to take their picture in the nude without their consent. Just my two cents. |
| prism2525 |
Posted - 05/08/2008 : 6:51:34 PM
McNigel, the problem is not that nudism is not natural (it perfectly is) but what's on the photographer's mind is. If he's just collecting snaps to make a naturist beach album I believe it's fine, but if he's a pervert and wants to make erotic scenes out of them (editing perhaps) I surely don't want to end up on such photos.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
"If God had intended mankind to run around naked, surely we'd have been born that way!"
oh, wait.... |
| n/a |
Posted - 05/08/2008 : 5:25:06 PM
Cell phone cameras do not bother me. As someone else already said, they take very poor photos. It's the regular cameras that I turn my face from. I have a business that might be effected if customers knew. I spend much of my time in their home during the day. Many times the husband is gone to work. Today's society still typically looks at the nudist as sexually aggressive. Not a good combination for me, as I live less than 50 miles from the nude beaches I visit. So, when cell phone cameras get better, I'll just turn my face while they're clicking. If they like my body THAT much, I feel priviledged, at MY age. 
Hiking the Cascades "naturally"! |
| McNigel |
Posted - 05/08/2008 : 4:56:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by HappyDaz
McNigel, I don't think anyone believes that a picture will steal their soul. I think I speak for most nudists when I say that we don't want people we don't know capturing nude images of us. As Eleanor has pointed out, once someone has take your picture nude, there's no telling where that picture will end up or for what purpose it will be used.
(The sole stealing was a joke. And a spelling mistake)
The serious point is that if you are a nudist and think that public nudity is perfectly natural, then it shouldn't make any difference to you if you are photographed clothed or naked.
Also what are these evil uses that the pictures will be put to? If they are published anywhere they are only a record of an actual event, you are not being misrepresented. |
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
 |
|
|
