[Klondike]

First of all, regarding a photographers rights to take photos on public property, I found this link helpful:

hxxp://petapixel.com/assets/store/photographersrights.txt

see especially 4, 8 and 10.

The "reasonable expectation of privacy" issue comes up in #4 and I can't say as I really know how to apply this legally. I know that it comes up a lot in voyeur type cases. My interpretation would be that everyone in public has the right to at least some personal space upon which you cannot intrude. I.e holding your camera three inches away from a girls pubes at the WNBR would be a violation of their personal space and an invasion of privacy. Just IMHO, but this seems the most likely interpretation of "reasonable expectation of privacy". The nudity issue would not seem to figure in if you are voluntarily nude. But this would apply to all forms of photography in public. Getting in a homeless persons face, for example, and snapping away from 6 inches away - not advisable.

Photographers opinions on obtaining permission to shoot in public vary. But it is not legally necessary. Also, if you are asked by a potential subject not to take their pic, you should honor their request as a moral courtesy. But again, it isn't legally required that you do so.

No's 8 and 10 address acts of aggression against photographers. Read these carefully. They are pretty self explanatory.

Now regarding nude beach photography, I bet that some would say that because you are nude, you have a greater "expectation of privacy" than if you were clothed. This would seem to be a key issue on a nude beach. And so for help in dissecting this matter, I turned to this article:


hxxp://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/07/visitors_of_nj_nude_beach_face.html


The key points from this are as follows:

1) According to a spokesperson for the friends of Gunnison Beach, you have "no expectation of privacy" regarding photography there. Remember, this is not coming from the mouth of an OCC member or voy photographer, but from the mouth of a Gunnison regular and a woman to boot. So there goes my notion above, or rather some people's notion, that one might hope to have a greater expectation of privacy if one is nude. It just doesn't seem to be so, however.

2) Park Rangers at Gunnison, who in recent times have taken greater control over the beach "do not want beach regulars taking the law into their own hands" when it comes to confronting photographers. We have stated here that to do so may be breaking the law, and violates #8 and #10 above.

3) Concerning what action you might consider taking if you are a beach regular wanting to prohibit pic taking - there are many examples listed. Most focus on ways you might embarrass a voy with a camera. I.e recall nopubes iPhone solution. But NOWHERE in the article is their any hint that you can legally take things any further than that.
Recall again rules #8 and #10 above. This includes making threats, detainment, mob action, assault, destruction of personal property, removal from the beach, etc. Hell, according to #10, you may not even legally force an individual to delete his pics!

OK, so thats the scoop as far as I can tell.

Anyway, now to turn to the defense of the other side of the argument for a moment. We all want these beaches to remain viable and popular, and so where the legal arguments leave off, some moral ones should kick in. For example, if someone were to come up to me and ask me to delete pics I had taken on a nude beach, i would do so without question. PLEASE HONOR THESE REQUESTS! That is unless that person is being unusually aggressive, obnoxious, insulting or whatever.

Otherwise, I have state personally that I don't like taking pics on nude beaches, and that it can weigh on my conscience at times. A big part of that is the expectation of privacy issue, which, notwithstanding the words of a Gunnison Beach regular, is a moral issue somewhat divorced from the legal one. Professional photographers generally will not take your photo if you request specifically that they do not. It is a moral courtesy. And does this also extend to subjects who you have good reason to suspect DO NOT want their picture taken but are not telling you outright? I think to a fair degree, it should. But again, this is a moral question, not a legal one. So, in conclusion, legally things are quite clear. Morally, not so much so. But the main reason I am putting all of this out there is to address the issue of confrontations with photographers. And here, their legal right to take pics is clearly stated as long as they honor ones "reasonable expectation of privacy" which I interpret to mean you cannot be right in that persons face. Recall again that at Gunnison you have "no expectation of privacy" so I doubt that one could argue in favor of a stricter interpretation of this phrase. You are voluntarily nude in public after all, and are voluntarily naked within sight of others. And finally - once again, you cannot legally threaten, mob, assault, detain, remove from the beach, or destroy the personal property of said photographer.

Klondike