Street on the Beach... Oops, she's topless!

ColSebastianMoran

ColSebastianMoran

( IRL Richard Karash )
Local time
2:48 PM
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
2,738
Shooting birds on a beach near a major metro area in the US. Very public beach. Yes, literally, birds, with a long lens.

I noticed two young adults playing in the distance. She poked him in the ribs, then took off running. This continued back and forth. I raised my long lens and started taking a couple of shots.

Then I noticed, oops, she's topless. I shot some more. I have a couple that are the best "street" photos I've ever made. Two young people having a great time, oblivious of the burdens to come in their future.

Dilemma: Can I do anything with this photo, e.g. post here on RFF? Put on my web site? I think it's an ethical dilemma. Is it OK to use this photo?

(No, I have no thought of using it in advertising. No, I have no model release. Yes, I think she's 18, but it's hard to know for sure.)

Your thoughts?
 
My first thought is that in public areas people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, if you accidentally flash yourself in front of a crowd you can't sue them for watching.

One would think that this carries over to photography - with the usual caveats about street photography, of course.

Re: Jim's comment about faces, that should only matter for commercial use (if I'm right and you can still use it in a show or post it to a site).
 
as 'art' you can do most anything you want with it...they have no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public beach.
as a commercial shot, without a signed release you can only look at it.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
Nick, that's the question. Is there a difference?
Click to expand...

I would say no.

I think exactly the same principles apply as would be the case with any other candid street photo. That's not to say that it is or isn't ethical, but rather that the fact the subject is topless shouldn't be the determining factor. Whether people have an issue with candid photography is a seperate topic.

If it was a paparazzi shot of someone sun baking topless in their backyard then obviously it would be a very different discussion. But a photo of someone in a public space, which displays them precisely the way they chose to be in that space...
 
Much has changed over the years regarding public nudity in the US. In some places it is not illegal for a woman to show bare breasts in public.

In your area, any idea what the laws/regulations are with respect to this?
 
I'm gonna be "that guy"

I wouldn't have even pressed the shutter. If I'm there to shoot birds, make sure they are of the flying variety.
 
There is a difference between dressed and undressed.

Although there is no expectation of privacy regarding the law, she most likely did not expect to be photographed. Publishing a photo of a girl topless that can be identified could have lasting effects for the girls life. She would most likely be embarrassed, friends would treat her differently, employers would too. I believe that it is morally and ethically wrong to publish the photo for whatever reason. I would like to think that I wouldn't have pressed the shutter, but I do not judge you for taking the shot, I wasn't there.
 
BLKRCAT said:
I'm gonna be "that guy"

I wouldn't have even pressed the shutter. If I'm there to shoot birds, make sure they are of the flying variety.
Click to expand...

I have to agree, but mainly because I find the whole "nude innocence" idea to be utterly uninteresting and cliche (and very often just a thin beard for ogling, which isn't ethically wrong, but merely interminably boring).

But, to respond to the OP's real question: Asking other people to validate ethically your choices is unproductive. What matters is your conscience.

So, let's think about how you feel. From your post, you seem not entirely comfortable with having taken or "doing something with" these photos (long lens; they didn't know they were being photographed; their faces are visible; you aren't sure she's over 18, etc.). From your description, the photos sound like they depend on the nudity for their whole idea / impact, which it seems is lending them a whiff of prurience to your conscience. So, do nothing with the photos. At least for now. Someday you may feel differently, about them -- if you're less conflicted, then you can use them for art purposes. Or if you eventually feel that they're uninteresting, then you can continue to leave them unpublished. Doing nothing now leaves open the option of doing something later. Doing something with them now closes the door for good to doing nothing.

EDIT: If I've misread your post entirely and you're completely ethically untroubled, then use them (non-commercially) as you wish. As several posters have already said, rightly, the law, at least in the US, is pretty clear that they had no expectation of privacy. So you're legally entitled, assuming you're in the US that is.
 
Yes, I am ethically concerned.

All of your comments are helpful and appreciated.

To answer one question, the images are, I think, great candid photography of two young people having fun in public. The bare breast makes it better, but it would be good anyway.

I want to hear your comments, so I'll wait till tomorrow to post what I've been thinking about this.
 
michaelwj said:
There is a difference between dressed and undressed.

Although there is no expectation of privacy regarding the law, she most likely did not expect to be photographed.
Click to expand...

You could say that about any candid street photo, so where do you draw the line?

By her actions, the subject has demonstrated fairly clearly that she is not embarrassed about being in public, and being seen in public, topless.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just still don't see the ethical difference between this and any other candid street photo.
 
Were they on public beach? If so, I don't see it illegal. You don't go on the public beach to shake boobs and run like chicken and demand privacy. The question is - do I want to see some boobs?
And the answer is I have seen and not just seen them already.
Went once to take street pictures of riding bike naked action in Toronto Downtown. Boobs and else and close. But best picture is two ladies in focus laughing hard. And naked duderillo is in blurred background behind.
And street with birding tele is not the street, IMO. But if you have their picture where perspective is squeezed not just by tele, they are moving same like birds and we see what she is topless, but can't see boobs, I'm all for it. :)
 
nickthetasmaniac said:
You could say that about any candid street photo, so where do you draw the line?

By her actions, the subject has demonstrated fairly clearly that she is not embarrassed about being in public, and being seen in public, topless.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just still don't see the ethical difference between this and any other candid street photo.
Click to expand...

I draw the line where the person being photographed will potentially be harmed by publishing the photo. A candid in the street is fine unless the person is in a compromised position, I think that is the line for me. Most good street photography I see is a connection between the photographer and the subject, the subject and photographer both consent to some extent. However, I think that shooting candid photos with a long lens does not give the subject the choice.

As an aside, my wife works as a criminologist in sexual violence, and I hear a lot about what happens to the subjects in candid "nude" photos. They are actually referred to as the victim, not subject. If a person known to the girl gets a copy of the photo they can literally destroy her life. It happens and poses an unacceptable risk.

Another point, if you did this on a beach in Sydney of Briabane, you'd likely be arrested as a peeping tom.

That's my 2c.
 
How about another scenario. You've been surfing and are getting changed in the carpark. Your towel falls down as you pull up your pants and someone snaps a shot of your tackle with your face with a long lens and posts it online. Someone you know gets a hold of it and posts it to their Facebook page. All your friends and family see a photo of you naked in a carpark. You never knew the shot had been taken.
Now, you were in public so you knew you would be photographed. Did you therefore consent to that photograph being published? Is that the same as someone waiting until you've gotten dressed taking you photo up close, where you can engage with the shooter - even if just to tell then you'd prefer not have your photo taken? I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom