Harrassment at Beach Photo Shoot!

Roger Krueger · Jul 11, 2006

They had a problem in L.A. around Easter where someone leased a house in an upscale neighborhood pretending to be a family guy, and then sublet it to every high-end porn studio he could find. Even though they were all very careful that the neighbors could see nothing, said neighbors were incensed about "those kind of people" just being in their neighborhood. After much pressure they got the location marked as "overused", stopping the film permits.

The thing that surprised me the most about this was that the porn studios are getting so legit they're getting permits just like everyone else. I guess I'd always thought of porn as flying under the radar.

CharlieDIY · Jul 11, 2006

tellem_esdreamin said:
Stephen Schwartz said:

in Afghanistan you would have your camera hand amputated!
--

Click to expand...

But then again you wouldn't have been at the beach in the first
place ;-)

Ian

And the women would have been executed before you could get the camera up, anyway.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

Larz Yerxa · Jul 11, 2006

Craig Gillette said:
That's why I wrote Google. Although I suppose there is a certain
perverse consistency in paying for something others offer freely.

Google is great, but it lacks the depth and detail. The phrasing "privacy tort" is one that is unique to a search engine. It would'nt explain that Tort is an area of law and privacy is a right, a violation of which may be brought with a tort action. I just thought your phrasing was a little different.
Larz
--

Larz Yerxa · Jul 11, 2006

snow4ever said:
Larz Yerxa said:

kristian2000 said:

Your freedom to
do a photoshoot of hoes doesn't protect you from someone objecting

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hey, I actually looked up the plural of "ho" , there seems to be no
agreement, "hos" would read like another word, and "ho's" would
incorrectly use an apostrophe.

Good, as long as garedning implements aren't dissed

Larz

kristian2000 said:
kristian2000 said:

Disrespecting gardening implements is where I draw the line! I can
see it now, the guy from "GardeningBy The Yard" getting in your
face during a shoot.

Larz

Click to expand...

kristian2000 said:

--

Click to expand...

--

Kristian Farren
http://kf3.net/gallery/

--

tbcass · Jul 11, 2006

I have two things to say (other than your "models" aren't very attractive).

1) You have a perfect right to do what you did.

2) Common courtesy dictates that you should have done the shoot somewhere other than a family oriented beach.

Respect for others takes many forms. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

tbcass · Jul 11, 2006

People have a right to their own opinions. So you believe someone who you perceive as a "prude" should be forced to change to conform to your point of view? Personally I have no problem seeing nude people on a beach but I respect the opinions of those who disagree. So often those who perceive themselves as open minded are, in their own way, very closed minded.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

tommc4 · Jul 11, 2006

No, I don't believe that anyone should conform to my beliefs, however, if there is nothing illegal going on (in this case no nudity or sex) then she had absolutely no right to come over and interfere with us. There are many things in this world that I do not like or agree with, but they are not illegal, therefore I have no right to say anything! And I don't! So, I guess I am saying that I would like others to treat me with the same respect and dignity that I show them.

Take care!
--
Tom McElvy
http://imagesbytom.com
Va Beach VA, USA

johnduncan · Jul 11, 2006

.......that the pics could do with some more fill flash?

tommc4 · Jul 11, 2006

Ah, yes, but I was not in Afganistan...the good ol USA!
--
Tom McElvy
http://imagesbytom.com
Va Beach VA, USA

tommc4 · Jul 11, 2006

The shots I posted had no PP done to them. Yes, We really needed more light, but I didn't want to "set up" a location shoot for obvious reasons....

Thanks for the comments!
--
Tom McElvy
http://imagesbytom.com
Va Beach VA, USA

tommc4 · Jul 11, 2006

I would agree with you. However, it does not give you the right to interfere with others. While I have the right to holler the word fire, I do not have the right to shout it out in a crowded theater!

I would suggest that she could have politely voiced her disdain, listened to reason, and perhaps walked away unhappy. But interferring with us is another story entirely!

Take care!
--
Tom McElvy
http://imagesbytom.com
Va Beach VA, USA

tommc4 · Jul 11, 2006

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this point. The fact that it IS legal, and that there was NOTHING being seen that was not already on the beach everyday makes me take exception. Perhaps the fact that the use of a photographer drew the attention of others was the problem. During the course of the shoot and subsequent verbal altercation, many young ladies were walking the beach in far less than the girls I photographed were. But that seemed ok to everyone.

Perhaps it was just that...the attention caused by the camera. However, I would agree with you if it was a nude shot on a family beach...I am very fussy about that. If I had thougt for a minute that there was a posibility of anything possibly happening that was NOT ok in public, I would not have done the shoot. While they may not have been the prettiest gals, I had no problem with the shoot, because everything was street legal, and there was no sexual activity.

Thanks and take care!
--
Tom McElvy
http://imagesbytom.com
Va Beach VA, USA

TuckerUK · Jul 11, 2006

I can't believe some of you have compared public nudity with these pictures. I have no problem with public nudity (on beaches or elsewhere) at all, it's completely natural. I have no problem with my children seeing nudity either for the same reason. Posing in such an overtly sexual manner however is in my opinion stretching the bounds of decency.

I'm shocked many of you don't seem to recognise the difference.

--
Geoff

http://www.pbase.com/tuckeruk

harrygilbert · Jul 11, 2006

TuckerUK said:
Sorry, I'm far far far from being a prude, but if I saw the
'models' posing like that on a public (i.e. family) beach I'd have
something to say too. Time and a place and all that jazz.

Since when does "public" equate to "family" and thus limit the use by "non-family" groups?

There's absolutely nothing obscene or wrong with the photographs, and the bathing attire and poses are perfectly acceptable and legal where taken. I've seen more scanty attire on young ladies at nearly every beach (and mall and night spot) I've ever been to. Just my opinion.

davidleegoerndt · Jul 11, 2006

This one could be titled "Dog Day Afternoon".

tommc4 · Jul 11, 2006

Geoff:

Therein lies the problem! The hardest part is looking sexy without "looking sexy." I believe that if these gals were on the beach without a photographer, this most interesting discussion would never have ensued. Ad the phototgrapher into the mix, along with the fact that I am an older man (52), then that must make for a sex shoot!

People here in the US are so damn uptight about sex...and I thank you for your comments. This entire thread has bene fun and most enlightening!

--
Tom McElvy
http://imagesbytom.com
Va Beach VA, USA

harrygilbert · Jul 11, 2006

snow4ever said:
She was also practicing her right to free speech. Your freedom to
do a photoshoot of hoes doesn't protect you from someone objecting
to it.
I'm not taking a stand for or against what you did, but everything
we do might have consequences that we don't like.

In the US, the First Amendment states that Congress (and by extension, governments in general) cannot pass legislation barring free expression of political discussion. It allows a citizen to come up to you and state their feelings, but not to interfere with what you're doing. If the protester thought that what the OP was doing, she had the right to call the police, who would act if there was a violation of law, but no right to do more than that. Free speech means that one may speak, but does not require anyone to listen.

Photographers who are harassed by such busybodies should state (calmly, as did the OP), that the person has a right to their ideas, now cease and desist or you will call the police and initiate prosecution for harassment and assault. If they touch your or your equipment, that's also battery.

tommc4 · Jul 11, 2006

Cute....yea, they could have been more attractive, but I don't picked, I just photograph 'em! I really wish I could use some of the thousands of photos I have of my ex...but I gave her the rights when we split up so she could make a living. I have others that I will be placing on my website in the near future...some cuties too!

Take care!
--
Tom McElvy
http://imagesbytom.com
Va Beach VA, USA

harrygilbert · Jul 11, 2006

snow4ever said:
Larz Yerxa said:

kristian2000 said:

Your freedom to
do a photoshoot of hoes doesn't protect you from someone objecting

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hey, I actually looked up the plural of "ho" , there seems to be no
agreement, "hos" would read like another word, and "ho's" would
incorrectly use an apostrophe.

kristian2000 said:

Disrespecting gardening implements is where I draw the line! I can
see it now, the guy from "GardeningBy The Yard" getting in your
face during a shoot.

Click to expand...

tommc4 · Jul 11, 2006

--
Tom McElvy
http://imagesbytom.com
Va Beach VA, USA

Harrassment at Beach Photo Shoot!

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts