Harrassment at Beach Photo Shoot!

Terrible. Glad I wasn't there. Semi-naked women and all that.

Thank God you don't get porn on the good old Internet......

The harasser is a babe.

Bet she's a barrel of laughs in the sack.

Craig Gillette said:

Google wasn't confused nor were the various sites it returned that
used "privacy tort" in their titles, details, abstracts or
discussions, etc. (or privacy or tort and a wide variety of
different combinations). More than enough to get the main ideas
across.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned, I found the phrasing odd. One's a right, the other an area of law that provides a vehicle for enforcing the right. Google did deliver though, as you said.

Craig Gillette said:

Many of the responders were too busy being offended by the thought
that anyone might be offended by a possibly tasteless photoshoot
that they seemed to have missed that an assertion of editorial
usage might not be enough to deflect the issues arising from
holding someone out to public ridicule.

Click to expand...

Well, the the bringing of a tort action might ferret that out.

Craig Gillette said:

Brandeis's ghost will have to deal with an incident in Virginia
being hosted/discussed on an "English" site by an international set
of commenters.

Click to expand...

Not a student of Louis, I can only surmise that he could reconcile it. As I mentioned, I just found the phrase a little different and was having a bit of fun. Didn't mean to offend.

Larz
--

The original poster said he was 200 feet away from the woman. It's not like he's taking these photo's right in front of her.

I'm not familiar with that particular beach. In Malibu, California for instance, there are coves that you can hug for dramaitc rock and wave shots. Some of these coves are less than 150 feet apart. What could he do there? No one ever complained when they were filming "Baywatch". (Those girls were most definately prettier and more scantally clad.

I believe the poster did make an effort not to be near anyone. He had no reason to make an effort to move away some more.

tbcass said:

Tommc4 wrote:

While doing the shoot, a woman who was about 200 feet away came > over and started snapping photos of all of us with her camera phone.

Click to expand...

tbcass said:

shutterbugbytes said:

So tell me, who is trying to force people to conform to their point
of view?

Click to expand...

The lady was of course. She was over the top. At the same time the
photographer really should make an effort to find a spot away from
those who may be offended.
--
Tom

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

Click to expand...

shutterbugbytes said:

The original poster said he was 200 feet away from the woman. It's
not like he's taking these photo's right in front of her.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of a joke:

An old woman calls the police. The officer arrives. "What seems to be the problem, Ma'am?"

"It's the man who lives across the courtyard!" says the woman. "He's walking around his apartment without a stitch of clothes on! See for yourself!"

The policeman looks out the window. "Ma'am, I'm looking where you said, but what's the problem? He can't be seen below the waist."

"Oh, yeah?" the old woman exclaimed "Stand on a chair!"

--
Paul S. in Maryland

nickoly said:

somebody has used the words I was looking for.
I only bothered to come back to these miserable women because the
topic had attacted so much traffic. It didn't get better and I'm
amazed it took about a hundred posts for this to come up

Click to expand...

...I don't see anything wrong w/ the OPs topic and telling us the story of what happened -- this is of general interest to all photographers -- okay, so you don't like the subject -- who are they hurting? Don't they have rights too? Who appointed you guardian of what is right and wrong? Possibly you're just a bit too intolerant? Yes I feel bad for them, but I don't hate them, to call them miserable...

I'd love to hear what you have to say about a recent photo essay posted on the Minuteman Project -- which should have been posted in this discussion vs. where it was -- http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=18890089 -- would you be critical of me calling them a bunch of hateful vigilantes. Possibly I'm just a bit too intolerant?

weirmg said:

...I don't see anything wrong w/ the OPs topic and telling us the
story of what happened -- this is of general interest to all
photographers -- okay, so you don't like the subject -- who are
they hurting? Don't they have rights too? Who appointed you
guardian of what is right and wrong? Possibly you're just a bit too
intolerant? Yes I feel bad for them, but I don't hate them, to call
them miserable...

Click to expand...

"Miserable" is a word that has several different connotations. Nickoly
probably just means "women in misery" when he says "miserable
women".

And even though they are smiling in the photos, I'd guess their lives
aren't as much fun as many others. I'd wonder if much more
than half their customers are drunk when they call up the escort
agency. I can't imagine it's fun work at all.

Not to suggest I think it should be a crime ... but it's just a sad
thread. And the OP seems to think it's all a big laugh... unless I
am mistaken.

lol!
--
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/digirob

tommc4 said:

Good Morning All!

(Normally, I hang out in the Canon 30D forum, but this seemed a
more appropriate place to post this.)

Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah.

Appropriate place? That's a good one!

Yeah, man, like it's really great we got dudes like you to stick up for our camera rights!

Let's see: You paint yourself as a victim on a forum primed to show sympathy, show some pictures of (cough!) "models" who work for a (wink, wink) "escort" service, mention "adult" entertainment, then you list your name and your web address. And I'm sure your alleged harasser (a.k.a. known as a "shill") really feels her identity was protected by your most excellent photoediting. Remarkable, too, that this grandma-aged woman was there with her hubby and "kids" and yet was offered no assistance when you started grabbing her stuff.

I also really enjoyed the perfectly level, framed shot where you're holding the harasser's phone and your camera at the same time. Great technique under pressure. How lucky it was she paused before trying to grab her phone back, too! Or maybe she had that reflex-numbing condition-- what's it called?-- oh, yeah: Posed-ass-itis.

Uh huh. Not all spam comes in a can. But it sure is great when you can a sympathetic hearing and free international advertising at the same time, ain't it? What a frickin' lucky coincidence. Serendipity, even. You get to crusade against closed-minded censors and promote your own smirking self-interest at the same time. It don't get any better than this.

Maybe you should title your little self-serving essay, "Skagsville Shoot-out" and try peddling it to Jerry Springer. Spice it up a bit and you might even move on up to Larry Flint. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Eh, I found myself wishing that a whole lot more "fill DARK" had been used... shudder

Yes -- I agree that these women are in sad situation -- and I feel bad for them -- but possibly they are just using their God given talents to earn a living -- I couldn't imagine having to sell myself for a living -- wait, that's what I do now -- only I sell my intellectual capacity and much more of my own precious time than these women do... Now, who is the hapless one?