Sandy Hook & Lighthouse Beaches (originals)

[rvd1234]

wife at the beach

[vgary]

oldies, but hopefully not too many repeats

***** COPYRIGHTED PIC REMOVED *****

[BeachBiker]

Originally Posted by vgary

oldies, but hopefully not too many repeats

Absolutely nothing wrong with the "oldies" pictures, but I don't think most were taken at either Sandy Hook or Lighthouse beach.

The water color in the pictures is just too green, and the little bit of scenery doesn't fit either. The Atlantic water around New York and New Jersey is always a much darker blue. And the fact that they aren't really Gunnison pictures might be a good thing anyway.

Not to be a real downer, but it might be wise to be careful about posting Sandy Hook or Gunnison Beach pictures online without the permission of the people in them. It just isn't worth the risk.

Gunnison is in New Jersey, where they now have a strong law against posting, or even exchanging, pictures showing a person's private parts without that person's permission to display them. It's actually a crime that carries a penalty of five years in a New Jersey prison. (not a nice place for a long vacation )

The law is the result of a Rutgers student jumping to his death from the George Washington Bridge because his room mate hooked up a webcam that allowed a few people down the hall to watch him having sex with another guy. The court case that convicted the roommate was one huge hassle that made global news. You can easily google to find the story, and the new law that followed.

[ModelT-MsDollie]

I always wondered about our rights of privacy. Yet I was told if you are in a public place you are public domain.
At most nude beaches there are understandings that you will not be photographed. Cell phone cameras and small digital cameras have caused us to lose all privacy. You can be Googled from a remote cornfield in Iowa.
As both a nudist and exhibitionist I still believe not taking pictures on most nude beaches is a great idea. Otherwise many people will stop attending.
Altho spending five years in prison may not be such a bad thing. Free room and board plus free medical with other benefits.

[r7o7b5]

Originally Posted by amy1979

Let me know if you have seen me out thre

Would LOVE to see more of you

[spr]

Alone inside one's domicile (i.e. dorm room), an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A "voyeur" law applies in that case.

On a public beach, in this case a Federal Recreation Area, there is explicitly *no* expectation of privacy. Thus, open masturbation would be illegal, because its not a private place. A place cannot be both private and public. The beach is unquestionably public.

[retrac55]

Originally Posted by BeachBiker

Absolutely nothing wrong with the "oldies" pictures, but I don't think most were taken at either Sandy Hook or Lighthouse beach.

The water color in the pictures is just too green, and the little bit of scenery doesn't fit either. The Atlantic water around New York and New Jersey is always a much darker blue. And the fact that they aren't really Gunnison pictures might be a good thing anyway.

Not to be a real downer, but it might be wise to be careful about posting Sandy Hook or Gunnison Beach pictures online without the permission of the people in them. It just isn't worth the risk.

Gunnison is in New Jersey, where they now have a strong law against posting, or even exchanging, pictures showing a person's private parts without that person's permission to display them. It's actually a crime that carries a penalty of five years in a New Jersey prison. (not a nice place for a long vacation )

The law is the result of a Rutgers student jumping to his death from the George Washington Bridge because his room mate hooked up a webcam that allowed a few people down the hall to watch him having sex with another guy. The court case that convicted the roommate was one huge hassle that made global news. You can easily google to find the story, and the new law that followed.

I think that you should be careful in your statements about this law. Obviously you're not a lawyer as your (mis) application of this law is much too broad brushed. This would prevent publication in sporting magazines or news magazines or news broadcasts of anyone that had not given their permission. The law is meant to keep private things private. Behavior and activities on public property don't appear to be protected by this law. User 'spr' seems to have a better handle on the situation as stated in post #144 in this thread.

[BeachBiker]

Originally Posted by retrac55

I think that you should be careful in your statements about this law. Obviously you're not a lawyer as your (mis) application of this law is much too broad brushed. This would prevent publication in sporting magazines or news magazines or news broadcasts of anyone that had not given their permission. The law is meant to keep private things private. Behavior and activities on public property don't appear to be protected by this law. User 'spr' seems to have a better handle on the situation as stated in post #144 in this thread.

Alone inside one's domicile (i.e. dorm room), an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A "voyeur" law applies in that case.

On a public beach, in this case a Federal Recreation Area, there is explicitly *no* expectation of privacy. Thus, open masturbation would be illegal, because its not a private place. A place cannot be both private and public. The beach is unquestionably public.

Gentlemen:

Here is the section of the NJ Privacy law that I was referring to and is relevant:

c. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, "disclose" means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection.

Here is a link to the entire law: http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-...tice/14-9.html

This law does not prohibit the taking of pictures in a public place, like on a federally owned beach, if you can see it, you can take a picture of it. This law just prohibits the showing of those pictures to anyone else without the specific permission to do so from the person in the photo, if that person's "intimate parts" are shown.

As to news and sports magazine photos, there aren't many legitimate news or sports publications, TV reports, news websites etc. that would be likely to publish pictures of a person's "intimate parts" or of people engaged in "sexual contact" so this law would not impact them, unless they did.

It should also be noted that New Jersey has a "Right of Publicity Law." Simply put, that law prohibits the use of a person's "image" for commercial purposes without permission. It's very similar to having an automatic copyright on your own picture. To cut to the chase: it "could" be possible that a person whose picture is posted on a commercial website could sue for use of their image without their permission. It's civil, not criminal law, but there have been substantial monetary awards in cases involving that law. Without going into all the legal weeds and reasons, photos used for news purposes are exempt.

Publicity law here: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-...-publicity-law

If you google NJ privacy law and defense lawyers you'll find that some of them have pages devoted to explaining these specific laws

Here is a link to one of them: http://www.marainlaw.com/page.php?here=privacy

Mostly, these laws are being used in "revenge porn" cases, but a Gunnison beach goer who finds their "intimate parts" picture posted on the internet without their permission "could" try to make use of them too. My caution was that if the picture was taken at Gunnison, then there is that New Jersey connection that could allow the law to apply.

All this legal stuff got extensive coverage several years ago as a result of the Rutgers suicide case, but the laws have actually been on the books since before that.

I made the post above almost a year ago, and it seems nobody took exception to it until today. In addition to the defense lawyers websites I mentioned, I have read other postings and discussions of these two laws on other websites, and in news publications, and heard radio discussions concerning them and I am not alone in thinking that it is wise to avoid potential problems with them. If you spent any time paying attention to that Rutgers trial, all this was hashed over again and again in the news reports.

Remember, it's the showing or posting of the "intimate parts" pictures without the permission of the person in them, not the right to take them in a public place, that is the specific violation of these laws.

Sorry to be such a downer.

[retrac55]

Originally Posted by BeachBiker

Gentlemen:

Here is the section of the NJ Privacy law that I was referring to and is relevant:

c. An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, "disclose" means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection b. of N.J.S.2C:43-3, a fine not to exceed $30,000 may be imposed for a violation of this subsection.

Here is a link to the entire law: http://law.onecle.com/new-jersey/2c-...tice/14-9.html

This law does not prohibit the taking of pictures in a public place, like on a federally owned beach, if you can see it, you can take a picture of it. This law just prohibits the showing of those pictures to anyone else without the specific permission to do so from the person in the photo, if that person's "intimate parts" are shown.

As to news and sports magazine photos, there aren't many legitimate news or sports publications, TV reports, news websites etc. that would be likely to publish pictures of a person's "intimate parts" or of people engaged in "sexual contact" so this law would not impact them, unless they did.

It should also be noted that New Jersey has a "Right of Publicity Law." Simply put, that law prohibits the use of a person's "image" for commercial purposes without permission. It's very similar to having an automatic copyright on your own picture. To cut to the chase: it "could" be possible that a person whose picture is posted on a commercial website could sue for use of their image without their permission. It's civil, not criminal law, but there have been substantial monetary awards in cases involving that law. Without going into all the legal weeds and reasons, photos used for news purposes are exempt.

Publicity law here: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-...-publicity-law

If you google NJ privacy law and defense lawyers you'll find that some of them have pages devoted to explaining these specific laws

Here is a link to one of them: http://www.marainlaw.com/page.php?here=privacy

Mostly, these laws are being used in "revenge porn" cases, but a Gunnison beach goer who finds their "intimate parts" picture posted on the internet without their permission "could" try to make use of them too. My caution was that if the picture was taken at Gunnison, then there is that New Jersey connection that could allow the law to apply.

All this legal stuff got extensive coverage several years ago as a result of the Rutgers suicide case, but the laws have actually been on the books since before that.

I made the post above almost a year ago, and it seems nobody took exception to it until today. In addition to the defense lawyers websites I mentioned, I have read other postings and discussions of these two laws on other websites, and in news publications, and heard radio discussions concerning them and I am not alone in thinking that it is wise to avoid potential problems with them. If you spent any time paying attention to that Rutgers trial, all this was hashed over again and again in the news reports.

Remember, it's the showing or posting of the "intimate parts" pictures without the permission of the person in them, not the right to take them in a public place, that is the specific violation of these laws.

Sorry to be such a downer.

Thanks for your lengthy response, I understand your point. I doubt that many would pursue a civil lawsuit as that process involves loss of privacy itself, the evidence being the very pictures that the individual would like to suppress. Additionally legal costs would be high and if the defendant was wealthy enough, it is likely the case could be tied up in the courts for many years. Ultimately I don't think that the law would be enforceable when tested Constitutionally - though I doubt it would get that far. The purpose for laws like these is to provide lawyers with a means to generate more income by generating $300 (lawyer's fees to their clients)
letters to websites threatening action.

[western_sun]

Originally Posted by bigappleboy

Hope it isn't a total wash this summer.

Hah, I know the lady on the top left! It's a few years later, but she still has a nice body--never seen her undressed but now when we chat I know what I'll be thinking about.