ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (01/05/85)
(Is this bug nailed yet?)
I call this 'photography and naturism' instead of 'photography and nudity',
because in the context of net.rec.nude they may mean very different things.
I know this probably applies to net.rec.photo and net.women, but if you want
to attract attention there a pointer is probably sufficient. Please don't
dual post.
My impression, from the naturist society's literature, is that the issue
of photography at nude beaches and other activities is quite an emotional
one. Nikki Craft, contributer to Clothed With the Sun and self styled
champion for nude rights, appears from her articles in this magazine to
be vehemently against the presence of cameras at nude activities. She
has made references to photography as 'stealing one's soul', equating photos
of nude women (why women exclusively?) with 'visual rape' and in general
makes the assumption that all male photographers want to do is rush home
and jerk off after developing their latest photos.
This to me is very odd. Here we're trying to make nudity acceptable,
provide an air of normalcy to the shedding of one's clothes, and here
comes some complete stranger who yells at you (if you happen to be male)
for bringing a camera. I usually bring a camera to the beach. Now
I'm afraid to take it along if I happen to be going to one that is clothes
optional.
What do the rest of you think? We might as well discuss these things now,
when there isn't much else in the way of nude activities. Then by the time
summer comes around we'll all be so twisted up no one will know what to do.
:-)
Smile! (*click*)
--
Ron Christian (Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif.)
{pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix}!wjvax!ronecl@ahuta.UUCP (e.leeper) (01/07/85)
REFERENCES: <303@wjvax.UUCP>
I agree that there is a dicotomy between what the naturists present as their
views regarding nudity and their "policy" against photography at clothing-
optional (a.k.a. nude) beaches. The fact that society as a whole does not view
nudity in the same way as naturists do is the cause of this.
It is for much the same reason that all but the most militant naturists do not
stroll down to their local 7-11 in the nude--society as a whole does not
approve. Nude beaches are a stepping stone, where naturists can go to a
relatively open area (more open thatn a fenced-in backyard), without offending
other people accidentally.
If you feel that photography at nude beaches is acceptable, than the naturists
there are entitled to feel that their nudity is acceptable everywhere. As it
is, they are willing to restrict their nudity if others will accept the
restrictions that they ask.
Evelyn C. Leeper
...{ihnp4, houxm, hocsj}!ahuta!eclben@moncol.UUCP (Ben) (01/07/85)
>My impression, from the naturist society's literature, is that the issue >of photography at nude beaches and other activities is quite an emotional >one. Nikki Craft, contributer to Clothed With the Sun and self styled >champion for nude rights, appears from her articles in this magazine to >be vehemently against the presence of cameras at nude activities. She >has made references to photography as 'stealing one's soul', equating photos >of nude women (why women exclusively?) with 'visual rape' and in general >makes the assumption that all male photographers want to do is rush home >and jerk off after developing their latest photos. > >This to me is very odd. Here we're trying to make nudity acceptable, >provide an air of normalcy to the shedding of one's clothes, and here >comes some complete stranger who yells at you (if you happen to be male) >for bringing a camera. I usually bring a camera to the beach. Now >I'm afraid to take it along if I happen to be going to one that is clothes >optional. Most of the clothing optional beaches which I am familiar are 'family oriented' areas. People come to these beaches to enjoy the sunshine and engage in sports such as volleyball, free from the taboos induced by our clothes-compulsive society. These people are not trying to make a civic statement, nor are they trying to champion the cause of naturism. They simply want to enjoy what they consider to be a better and more natural lifestyle. People who opt to enjoy the sunshine in this manner have not, however, abrogated their right to privacy. Just as it is reprehensible to eavesdrop on their conversations, it violates their privacy to photograph them without consent. Even the practice of bringing binoculars to the beach is infringing on the privacy of the beach-goers. If you must bring a camera, please point it only at yourself, your family, and others who have given you permission to photograph them. But better still, don't make your fellow beach-goers nervous. Leave the camera at home.
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (01/08/85)
> Here we're trying to make nudity acceptable, > provide an air of normalcy to the shedding of one's clothes, and here > comes some complete stranger who yells at you (if you happen to be male) > for bringing a camera. I usually bring a camera to the beach. Now > I'm afraid to take it along if I happen to be going to one that is clothes > optional. Do you also cary a pile of model-release forms, and make sure you hunt down each and every person you take/took/want-to-take pictures of and get a signed release to have the photo? If not, are you willing to pull the exposed film out of your camera and expose the whole role to sunlight at the first request to do so? If not, then you are violating the spirit of privacy associated with the clothes optional area. Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/08/85)
People's attitudes towards photographs vary a great deal. Personally, I don't like strangers taking photographs of me *with* clothes on. I am not even all that fond of having friends take pictures of me... It isn't that i subscribe to the ``visual rape'' theory, or that I think there is some chance that I will end up in the running for the ``Miss Ugly 1985'' [Hey! It's 1985 and they *didn't* blow up the world!] Contest, but simply that I consider my appearance part of me, and don't hand myself around indescriminately either... [yes! I know I post netnews :-)] Taking your camera to a nude beach is definitely going to upset people. A good many people will be there who really and truly think that there is nothing wrong with nudity but don't really want to begin spreading their enlightenment with their boss, or their maiden aunt in Raleigh, or any of a number of people who would be shocked if certain photographs magically appeared in the mail one morning... Not to mention what would happen if you were photographing for a college newspaper -- or perhaps even a city paper! Now, I doubt that you are going to do any of these, but then I have a generally optimistic opinion about the sort of people I find on nude beaches. But I will ask you to put the camera away. People come to the beach to *relax* *now*, not to fight for the right to relax without clothes on many (most?) (all?) beaches *someday*. Political activists need vacations too, just like other people! Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/09/85)
> > Here we're trying to make nudity acceptable, > > provide an air of normalcy to the shedding of one's clothes, and here > > comes some complete stranger who yells at you (if you happen to be male) > > for bringing a camera. I usually bring a camera to the beach. Now > > I'm afraid to take it along if I happen to be going to one that is clothes > > optional. > > Do you also cary a pile of model-release forms, and make sure you hunt down > each and every person you take/took/want-to-take pictures of and get a signed > release to have the photo? If not, are you willing to pull the exposed film > out of your camera and expose the whole role to sunlight at the first > request to do so? If not, then you are violating the spirit of privacy > associated with the clothes optional area. > > Sunny Excuse me, but I (as a photographer) do not need to get release forms signed from people in my pictures as long as I don't intend to use them for anything other than my personal photo album. Shooting pictures at a clothes optional (or for that matter at a normal minimally-clothed beach) is about as good taste as taking pictures of my neighbors house with a telephoto lens. But there isn't a whole lot you can do about it. A public place is a public place. If people are going to "see" you, you are going to have to endure the chance that people may photograph you. You should expect not to ever see those pictures somewhere else however. -Ron
hagouel@ittvax.UUCP (Jack Hagouel) (01/17/85)
> ... Here we're trying to make nudity acceptable, > provide an air of normalcy to the shedding of one's clothes, and here > comes some complete stranger who yells at you (if you happen to be male) > for bringing a camera ... > Ron Christian (Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif.) I agree with Ron. Since people like to remember naturist activities just like any other activity in their lives they should have the choice of shooting pictures. It is possible that these pictures will be misused. Just like pictures of nudes by famous painters are misused. If discression is used, the photographer with clearly offensive attitude may be politely warned that his act offends somebody (jush like hushing a talker in the movie). Privately, it is possible that the pictures are shown to audiences that were not present at the scene. But why should that be different than showing pictures of any other populated area (like a restaurant)? Who knows? This may attract new members to naturist activities. Ultimately, the intentions of the photographer, rather than the reactions of the viewers count. We cannot come up with a "intention test"; if, at a particular resort or activity, enough members feel unconfortable about the intentions of other members then cameras may be banned locally. Otherwise, I see no reason to ban cameras. Jack
heiser@cca.UUCP (Bill Heiser) (01/21/85)
These people who seem to feel that they have a right to photograph others
without their consent are definitely way "off base". Whether the subject
of their photos is clothed or unclothed, the principle remains the same--
if the subject is to be specifically selected for a photo, he/she should
be given the opportunity to voice their opinion in the matter. This is
simply a matter of being considerate.
In the case of "naturalist" recreation (i.e. sunbathing), the subject
is even more touchy. Most people that sunbathe in this manner do so
for their own enjoyment, not for the purpose of posing as a model for
some rude photographer.
--
Network: decvax!cca!heiser
USPS: Bill Heiser, PO Box 3202, Peabody, MA 01961-3202
nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) (01/24/85)
> These people who seem to feel that they have a right to photograph others > without their consent are definitely way "off base". Whether the subject > of their photos is clothed or unclothed, the principle remains the same-- > if the subject is to be specifically selected for a photo, he/she should > be given the opportunity to voice their opinion in the matter. This is > simply a matter of being considerate. > While I agree about the consideration part of this, there are plenty of test cases in the law books about the right of anyone to take anyone's picture in a public place. Nemo
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (01/25/85)
>From: nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) >Subject: Re: Photography and Naturism >Message-ID: <5634@rochester.UUCP> > >While I agree about the consideration part of this, there are plenty of >test cases in the law books about the right of anyone to take anyone's >picture in a public place. >Nemo This may apply to public nude beaches but what's the law when on private property (eg: clothing optional resorts). I'd think unauthorized photography in that circumstance would get you ejected, sans film, at the very least. Also, while taking a picture may be legal, distributing unauthorized copies of it, whether for profit or not, can probably get you all kinds of legal grief. On the rare occasions that news photographers have taken my picture in public they always made a point of getting my name and permission for use. I doubt they'd bother if they didn't have to do it. Maybe we should pose the question in net.legal? -- ============================================================================== The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI If thy CRT offend thee, pluck 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. it out and cast it from thee. Santa Monica, California 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/28/85)
> These people who seem to feel that they have a right to photograph others > without their consent are definitely way "off base". Whether the subject > of their photos is clothed or unclothed, the principle remains the same-- > if the subject is to be specifically selected for a photo, he/she should > be given the opportunity to voice their opinion in the matter. This is > simply a matter of being considerate. > Hey, I was just reacting to the person who claimed it was illegal to take the pictures. In my letter, I specifically stated that it was not very nice. I believe the analogy was to staring into my neighbors appartment with binoculars. -Ron