Public Nude Beach and the Photography Law

[Viffer06]

Is there a special law that disallow photography on Public Nude Beach?

As I was taking long exposure shots on the beach, I spotted some folks in the nude. They all gave me the nastly look when I'm not even taking pictures. I was merely walking by the area with my camera looking for interesting vantage point for a long exposure, angel hair type of shot.

[CAL Imagery]

That is interesting. If it's deemed public property, they really can't do anything, as there is no expectation of privacy.

[aebrown]

Yeah, if it's public property I don't think there is anything wrong, especially given that they are the ones choosing to walk around naked. If it were me, I think I wouldn't be taking pictures of them in the first place. I think normal model release stuff would apply. So long as you're using them for your use and not publicity and such, you're fine.

Interesting twist though. I'm no legal expert, so I can't say I'm correct.

[advaitin]

Perhaps they would have been more tolerant if you had removed your clothes. I found myself in such a situation years ago--another photographer had been insulted and even had mud thrown at him. I arrived as he was leaving and heard him complain about it, so I took off my clothes and went on to take photos without a problem--welcomed with open arms, almost.

This a scanned copy of one of my photos from that event. No obvious no-nos are visible, so it should be family friendly:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Law or not, they are obviously likely to give you a weird look.. :)

[Mark_Cohran]

If it's public property there are likely no laws restricting photography there. Here in Portland, the local nude beach areas, Collins Beach and Rooster Rock, are often used by photographers for outdoor nude photography. Nudist, however, are generally suspicious of people with cameras if they're not nude themselves.

[focus.pocus]

hate to burst everyones bubble but there are usually signs posted on nude beaches that forbid all sorts of things including cameras and cell phones that take pics. Most public beaches don't allow nudity in the US. Usually just private ones. Been there done that. Just thought I'd let you know. thanks

[Mark_Cohran]

hate to burst everyones bubble but there are usually signs posted on nude beaches that forbid all sorts of things including cameras and cell phones that take pics. Most public beaches don't allow nudity in the US. Usually just private ones. Been there done that. Just thought I'd let you know. thanks

I'm not sure where you went, but the nude beaches I've been to in Oregon, Florida, Washington, California, and Connecticut do not have photography restrictions. I've seen campfire restictions, alcohol restrictions, gun restrictions, standing in the grass restrictions, but never any photography restrictions. :)

[Viffer06]

I'm not sure where you went, but the nude beaches I've been to in Oregon, Florida, Washington, California, and Connecticut do not have photography restrictions. I've seen campfire restictions, alcohol restrictions, gun restrictions, standing in the grass restrictions, but never any photography restrictions. :)

+1. I looked for any signs that I might possibly be breaking. Next time, I'll just throw a brown bag over my head, hang the camera like a tourist, and go nude. :D

[Moose408]

Yep, they were giving you nasty looks because you are bringing a camera onto a nude beach. They don't know what you are planning on doing with it and probably assume the worse.

[RDKirk]

I guess I stopped at "public nude beach."

There are public nude beaches in the US? Beaches that are actually public property where nudity is tolerated by the local police?

[Mark_Cohran]

I guess I stopped at "public nude beach."

There are public nude beaches in the US? Beaches that are actually public property where nudity is tolerated by the local police?

Absolutely - here in Oregon there is Collins Beach and Rooster Rock, in Florida a stretch of Canaveral National Seashore is nude. The San Francisco area has several nude beach areas, most notably Marin Beach, and there is Black Beach near San Diego.

In fact, here's an entire list of nude beaches, some public and some private, but there are indeed plenty of public places where nudity is enjoyed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_nudity_places_in_North_America

[advaitin]

I guess I stopped at "public nude beach."

There are public nude beaches in the US? Beaches that are actually public property where nudity is tolerated by the local police?

Let's see.. Black's beach in San Diego (you Californians correct me if I'm wrong).

A couple of places in Florida that I either have been to or heard of: The National Seashore Park south of New Smyrna Beach and north of Playa del Linda above Kennedy Space center. Ordinarily you will not be arrested if you drive to the innermost parking from either the south or the north and walk a hundred feet or so toward the center of the seashore park. What won't be tolerated by the rangers is any display of overt sexuality, so no making out on the blanket and no erections (although I have a funny story about that from my one visit to the beach).

And I hear that Navarre Beach in West Florida is tolerant of nudity but also is a gay hangout and the sheriffs of the two counties that join there sometimes harass gays there for inappropriate public activity.

Each state in the US has its own laws, so some are more liberal than others. South Beach in Miami tolerates topless women. Daytona Beach, where I live, does not--sadly.

Some federal and state park areas or public lands have known nudist hangouts that are left alone, such as the wilderness areas of Idaho on BLM land that has a number of natural hot springs. Seeing people nude in the hot springs off wilderness roads was common when I was there in the late 80s.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I guess I stopped at "public nude beach."

There are public nude beaches in the US? Beaches that are actually public property where nudity is tolerated by the local police?

In Rhode Island Moonstone, was both a nude beach, and a National Wildlife Refuge,.. (insert jokes here)

An odd combination of Federal / public properties.

It only was closed to bathers due to protection of the Piping Plover nesting sites (again, insert you own joke here, we RI'ers have been making them fro 30 years or so)

http://www.projo.com/ri/jamestown/content/sc_bousquet06_11-06-07_UJ77HIT_v10.35a3b21.html

[AxxisPhoto]

Even though it is a public area, there are still legal issues when shooting people. I'm no expert, but if you posted that image and someone from the beach is in the shoot without signing a release form, I think they have legal recourse to make you take the image down. Just my .02

[CyberDyneSystems]

Only if you are profiting from the image..
Editorial or "personal use" ( :lol: ) and public property are a mix that does not require a release.

[advaitin]

Even though it is a public area, there are still legal issues when shooting people. I'm no expert, but if you posted that image and someone from the beach is in the shoot without signing a release form, I think they have legal recourse to make you take the image down. Just my .02

I believe I can answer this. Provided the photographer does not use the image for commercial gain, within the parameters of the rules pertaining to nudity or parts of body that a website may display without prohibiting minor viewers from access, any photograph of persons in a public or common space, visible to any and all who might walk by, may be published as editorial content.

Now, it's not nice to shoot people without their permission, but if they are visible to the public, they have no recourse as of yet in the US courts. Otherwise, you would never have seen topless shots of Jackie Kennedy Onassis on a private island--not hidden from public view even if that meant supertelephoto view from a boat way offshore, so she couldn't win a suit.

BUT, and this is big, because web sites are not limited to one country, you may violate the privacy laws of another country. For instance, Europeans now have a much stronger right to their own image. It is possible that a foreigner visiting the US, finding a photo of themselves nude on a US or other nation's web site, might be able to sue with photographer and the web site under European Union code. Who wants to be the test case?

[charlesu]

I believe I can answer this. Provided the photographer does not use the image for commercial gain, within the parameters of the rules pertaining to nudity or parts of body that a website may display without prohibiting minor viewers from access, any photograph of persons in a public or common space, visible to any and all who might walk by, may be published as editorial content.

Now, it's not nice to shoot people without their permission, but if they are visible to the public, they have no recourse as of yet in the US courts. Otherwise, you would never have seen topless shots of Jackie Kennedy Onassis on a private island--not hidden from public view even if that meant supertelephoto view from a boat way offshore, so she couldn't win a suit.

BUT, and this is big, because web sites are not limited to one country, you may violate the privacy laws of another country. For instance, Europeans now have a much stronger right to their own image. It is possible that a foreigner visiting the US, finding a photo of themselves nude on a US or other nation's web site, might be able to sue with photographer and the web site under European Union code. Who wants to be the test case?

Would the EU Code apply to a photograph made somewhere else? Wow, if so, that really makes things interesting. I would think it would apply to photos made there. Not sure how they could think it might apply to photos made elsewhere.

[Mark_Cohran]

BUT, and this is big, because web sites are not limited to one country, you may violate the privacy laws of another country. For instance, Europeans now have a much stronger right to their own image. It is possible that a foreigner visiting the US, finding a photo of themselves nude on a US or other nation's web site, might be able to sue with photographer and the web site under European Union code. Who wants to be the test case?

I think in this case, you would only violate the laws of the country if you are in the country at the time of the violation. By that I mean, if a European came to the US and had their image taken here, the US laws apply, or those laws to which the US agreed to by treaty.

[Cole_Schmitt]

If it's public property there are likely no laws restricting photography there. Here in Portland, the local nude beach areas, Collins Beach and Rooster Rock, are often used by photographers for outdoor nude photography. Nudist, however, are generally suspicious of people with cameras if they're not nude themselves.

:lol:
If you do go through with taking pictures at a nude beach, be prepared for some weird looks, and some people who will come over to you and start stuff.

[advaitin]

Would the EU Code apply to a photograph made somewhere else? Wow, if so, that really makes things interesting. I would think it would apply to photos made there. Not sure how they could think it might apply to photos made elsewhere.

I think in this case, you would only violate the laws of the country if you are in the country at the time of the violation. By that I mean, if a European came to the US and had their image taken here, the US laws apply, or those laws to which the US agreed to by treaty.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Because web sites have no apparent borders, the possibility exists for an EU citizen to initiate suit based on a photograph of themselves, even taken outside the EU, but published on a web site viewable within their own country or the EU and to which they object for whatever reason.

It would not matter that they were nude in Florida, if they saw the image back in their home computer in France, then their image is, in effect, published against their wishes in France, therefore within EU jurisdiction. At least, I'll bet some lawyer will see it that way.

Admittedly, it hasn't happened yet, but the EU code is relatively new. I was already getting flak in 2007 in Europe from people who walked into my frame when I was obviously shooting a tourist attraction--"Hey, you taking my picture, you know I have intellectual rights!!"

[Mark_Cohran]

They'd have a hard time following through with a suit like that, I would think.

[advaitin]

They'd have a hard time following through with a suit like that, I would think.

Like I said, it's a new code and things like that get tested sooner or later. Through some interesting legal maneuvers Spain managed to bring a case against a Chilean dictator when he came to Spain for medical treatment. From what I understand, the man was no saint, but one would think that the World Court in the Hague or the UN would be the ones to be the principles in the action or the Chileans, themselves.

Basically what they are establishing is a basis for trying people within the Union for deeds done outside the Union to people not within the Union. Not so far-fetched when you look at it that way.

[Mark_Cohran]

Basically what they are establishing is a basis for trying people within the Union for deeds done outside the Union to people not within the Union. Not so far-fetched when you look at it that way.

Sounds like a crock to me. How would the EU have any jurisdiction over people outside the EU for activities outside the EU? No court in the US would ever enforce a judgment under those circumstances, so the point would be moot.

[Stirfried]

Sounds like a crock to me. How would the EU have any jurisdiction over people outside the EU for activities outside the EU? No court in the US would ever enforce a judgment under those circumstances, so the point would be moot.

Well, as a sign of things to come (heading off-topic):
Australian holocaust-denier (disgusting, but not a crime in Australia) visits London (where its also not a crime) and is arrested and sent to Germany (where it is).http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/3116061/Holocaust-denier-Gerald-Toben-arrested-at-Heathrow.html

[Mark_Cohran]

This is indeed heading off topic, so let's get back on subject and stay away from what could lead us into a political discussion vs. a legal discussion.

With regards to the US, where the OP resides, there are no laws that I'm aware off that prevent photography on a public beach (nude or not) unless there is a specific prohibition posted at the beach. And even if Europeans tend to frequent the beach, I seriously doubt you're in any legal jeopardy should you decide to include them in your image despite the EU privacy laws. :)

[locky]

My wife and I have been to numerous nude beaches and have yet seen anybody taking pics of others. I take my P&S and have snapped pics of my wife but was making sure nobody was in the background. Since it is public property there really isn't anything they can do from you taking their picture but you are taking a chance of getting your butt kicked and having your equipment smashed. This is where people need to use common sense and respect someones privacy. I know I would not put up with somebody taking our pics while we were there.

[woodsters]

Whether legal or not, I think its distasteful to photo others like that without their consent... Imagine being at a public beach and someone taking photos of your kids...maybe you have a young daughter that's a teenager and someone is taking photos of her...legal, but distasteful.... plus you wouldn't be too happy...

[Addicted2Shooting]

Dude, just avoid any problems and leave your camera at home next time you go to a nudist beach. I don't know what you're intentions were, but if you were trying to get a quick snap then that's pretty lame, and what made you want to go to a 'nudist' beach to snap photos?????? Come on man!

[Mark_Cohran]

Dude, just avoid any problems and leave your camera at home next time you go to a nudist beach. I don't know what you're intentions were, but if you were trying to get a quick snap then that's pretty lame, and what made you want to go to a 'nudist' beach to snap photos?????? Come on man!

You might want to actually read the post before you come down so hard on the OP. He stated he was taking long exposure shots - not exactly what you'd expect from someone taking secretive shots on a beach.

I've taken my cameras to lots of nude beaches and resorts and shot many times. I plan to do it in the future as well. There is an etiquette that is expected and if you adhere to it, there shouldn't be an issue.

[Addicted2Shooting]

I've taken my cameras to lots of nude beaches and resorts and shot many times. I plan to do it in the future as well. There is an etiquette that is expected and if you adhere to it, there shouldn't be an issue.

Well what kind of etiquette are you talking about? Shooting nudists that want their pictures taken? Or shooting nudists that DON"T KNOW your shooting pictures of them?

[woodsters]

After re-reading the OP myself...perhaps altough you weren't taking their photo, they had the feeling that you were watching them, kind of like with binoculars...which of course would not be good etiquette...

[Mark_Cohran]

Well what kind of etiquette are you talking about? Shooting nudists that want their pictures taken? Or shooting nudists that DON"T KNOW your shooting pictures of them?

The Naturist (not nudist) etiquette is that you don't include people in the photo without their consent, although this is primarily true a private nude resorts and not at public nude beaches. At a public nude beach, the legal provisions apply - you're in public and you have no legal expectation of privacy whether you're clothed or not. In general, and in most specific I've encountered, most photographers take great care to not include others in their shots unless they've specifically asked.

Even so, the OP question was about the legality of shooting on a public nude beach. A number of us have given him advice based on our experience shooting in such places, and in my case, from the Naturist's perspective. There's no need to put yourself on a moral high horse when the OP obviously intended and is wiling to do the right thing. My impression is that that's why he even bothered to ask the question.

[sdsanta]

I have shot nude models at some nude beaches in California. I keep my camera in it's bag until I'm ready to shoot and am careful to find a relatively isolated area. I am also careful not to point my camera at other nudists on the beach. It may not be technically illegal if I snap a picture of someone else, but I think it's good to respect the privacy of others and keeps the mood congenial for future shoots. Also, note that some beaches have rules against 'llewd' behavior and in most cases this is subjective and not defined.

[hibijibis]

i find it hard to understand that you can go to a public beach, be seen nude by everyone there, and be embarrassed about being photographed nude.

it just seems a bit hypocritical that you are so comfortable with your body but not. ie your boss could be on the beach that day anyway. lulz

[Moose408]

i find it hard to understand that you can go to a public beach, be seen nude by everyone there, and be embarrassed about being photographed nude.

it just seems a bit hypocritical that you are so comfortable with your body but not. ie your boss could be on the beach that day anyway. lulz

Wow, this thread is a blast from the past. :)

It's not about being embarrassed about being photographed, it's about where the photo might end up. On a nude beach, typically the only people that are going to see you nude are the other people there on the beach with you who are of like mind. If a photo is taken it's going to end up on the internet and anybody can see it. There is a difference.

[Ltdave]

That is interesting. If it's deemed public property, they really can't do anything, as there is no expectation of privacy.

watch out making that comment HERE...

i said that and boy oh boy did I get an earful.... lol

standing in the grass restrictions

all dogs and sailors, keep off the grass... lol

[Ltdave]

Even though it is a public area, there are still legal issues when shooting people. I'm no expert, but if you posted that image and someone from the beach is in the shoot without signing a release form, I think they have legal recourse to make you take the image down. Just my .02

nope. not at all. if they are on a PUBLIC beach in view of the PUBLIC, they have NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION of privacy... been hashed out by the courts and HERE many times...

it's good to respect the privacy of others

if they want privacy then they need to NOT go out in PUBLIC. im fair game everytime i leave the house. so does my daughter, wife and my parents. so be it...

protect your privacy by not throwing credit card info in the garbage or not giving out other personal information like your doctors name or ailments...

[jrader]

I love revived threads! My thoughts: if you are going to shoot on a nude beach, why not inform the nudists of what you are doing? And if they are unconvinced, show them your pictures after you are done. That way, there is no ambiguity and you don't have to worry about legal ramifications.

Just a thought.

John

[Moose408]

nope. not at all. if they are on a PUBLIC beach in view of the PUBLIC, they have NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION of privacy... been hashed out by the courts and HERE many times...


This is true as long as you are not using the photos for commercial use. If you are then you must have a release. (this has also been hashed out here many times).

[Ltdave]

This is true as long as you are not using the photos for commercial use. If you are then you must have a release. (this has also been hashed out here many times).

Right. I didn't get the impression these were for commercial use. My bad for the incomplete thought for lack of a better term...