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

[ColSebastianMoran]

Don't post to the internet if you're concerned with the impact it could have on her career etc.
Print them, frame them, hang them. Or publish in a book if you want. Treat it as art, instead of the usual peek-a-boo snapshot posted online.

Johan, this is pretty much where I came out. But, I won't publish a book or submit it for publication in a book or magazine.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Personally, I agree with others where I can't see a photo taken from afar of a topless women as anything but creepy and deviant.
The argument that it is art? It's not, else the OP wouldn't have to ask.

The creepy/deviant part for me is the lack of contact with the subject. Street photographers in NYC may irritate their subjects, but they are in contact. In this case, the two young people had no idea I was photographing them. (However, it was obvious that there were a lot of photographers on the beach that afternoon with long lenses. If alert they could have figured it out. Should have? No, they were totally focused on each other. A beautiful scene, really.)

Is it art? I do think it's a strong image. Best candid "street" photo I've ever made.

... I'm glad he hasn't felt the need to post it.

*In case no one realised, I have kind of strong views about this 🙂

... and I won't post it. Thanks, Michael, for the clarity of your views. Helped a lot.

 

[Huss]

The idea of street photography, no matter where the actual location is IMO, is to get close and intimate with your subject. That way you have an interaction.
Using a long lens removes that interaction and just makes you a voyeur. Whether your subject is clothed or not.

 

[CameraQuest]

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?

Talk to a media lawyer.

Laws most likely vary from state to state, country to country.

Stephen

 

[Dogman]

I'm no lawyer (thank God!) or priest (ditto!) but like everyone I have an opinion.

You're overthinking it. Legally, you are okay unless you post the photo and offer it for sale. Ethically, you're okay as well because what happens in public is public by definition. But the most important thing is how you feel about it morally. If you think it would be wrong to post it, it's wrong...pure and simple.

 

[jsrockit]

The idea of street photography, no matter where the actual location is IMO, is to get close and intimate with your subject. That way you have an interaction. Using a long lens removes that interaction and just makes you a voyeur. Whether your subject is clothed or not.

So now you are a voyeur if you don't interact with your subject? I can assure you that me making photos of an unaware person never has anything to do with sex.

 

[Pherdinand]

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.

Utterly hypocritical world.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

I agree with Joe V. You need to post the pictures so we can make an informed judgment.

 

[michaelwj]

Utterly hypocritical world.

Sure, the world is full of contradictions. If everything was black and white then this thread would not exist. 🙂

 

[pepeguitarra]

American infatuation with breasts.

American infatuation with breasts.

Breasts is the fist thing we see when we are born. The first thing we suck from. The first source of food. They are the ugliest thing to look at after gravity has done its work. There is a window of time when they could be part of the stimulation for sex. But, my god, we are completely infatuated with breasts. I live in California, where it seems mandatory that every woman have implants to make them look weird and defiant of gravity. Some have problem with seeing a mother feed her baby. Some of the things we are so morbid about are so common in other parts of the world, and in nature. Many used to subscribe to National Geographic to see the breasts of the African girls> I do not recall asking of publishing the age of those girls. Looking at breast for me is a matter of art, not of morbo. It is a part of the body that provide curvilinear lines and volumes that help the composition of a painting or a photograph. Vincent Van Gogh painted a woman with her flaccid breasts, it was a beautiful picture.

Ok. That's it.😛

 

[pepeguitarra]

I'm no lawyer (thank God!) or priest (ditto!) but like everyone I have an opinion.

You're overthinking it. Legally, you are okay unless you post the photo and offer it for sale. Ethically, you're okay as well because what happens in public is public by definition. But the most important thing is how you feel about it morally. If you think it would be wrong to post it, it's wrong...pure and simple.

Worst thing that can happen is that you are requested to take it down.

 

[lamefrog]

Here in continental western Europe the difference between what happens now and what used to happen fourty years ago is huge. Quite frankly I don't recognize the very society I grew-up in.

I agree. For the reason behind the shift , this is essential reading:

Pfeiffer blames "pop-porn culture – Miley Cyrus to American Apparel, ie aggressive naked imagery of young girls" – for the shift in perception of going topless.

"Globalisation and Americanisation of women's portrayal and sexiness in France has pushed away gentle (and generally harmless) French eroticism towards porno, frontal, hyper-sexualised consciousness," she says. "Nudist, beach-like freedom is not what it used to be ... breasts no longer feel innocent or temporarily asexual."

The Guardian: The real reason French women have stopped sunbathing topless

Related: David Hamilton is now controversial. And also check out this thread, in French, on summilux.net.

 

[Addy101]

As for getting your photo taken cheating on your partner in public? Totally different kettle of fish here, you could also be directly seen by the other half.

I disagree, one can be very careful and making sure he/she isn't seen by anybody they know, but if somebody puts a picture on the internet you can't deny - you can if you're seen by someone you know: "must be someone like me, of course it wasn't me".

It is a different kettle of fish, but it still is a kettle of fish.

 

[pepeguitarra]

I think, I may have to sue Google. They have a picture of my house with me opening my car, ready to go to work. I do remember the van driving slowly with a big antenna-type camera on top, but I did not give my permission. Has Google been sued because of that?

 

[fdarnell]

It was on public property, so to me freedom of press applies. Do what you wish. The fact that the all the social justice warriors blame the photographers shows how culture rot has eliminated the responsibility of the individual for their actions and blames others who record or talk or write about those actions for the fact that those actions occurred.

My mother told me to be sure to not "put myself in compromising positions" when I was a teenager and started dating. It was MY responsibility.

Eliminating individual responsibility is part of the overall agenda in the US - look at all our current social problems. It allows for easier implementation of group think and "newspeak" as Orwell called it.

This cannot be reversed I fear, it is too far gone.

As far as the girl goes, perhaps she has thousands of selfies on YOLO or whatever that trash site is and she might actually thank you if she looks good.

 

[Richard G]

If you can live with the news story a few years from now of how her husband and she split up and her city law firm dumped her and it all began with that photo, which went 'viral', then sure. Many photographers wouldn't hesitate. But you're here asking the question so immediately the answer is no. You don't want it on your conscience. If it weren't for the long lens and your interest in the other birds you'd never have seen the full picture, as it were. Enjoy the memory. Delete the file. A bit Zen, but you'll sleep easier.

 

[Pioneer]

IMO you came to the right conclusion for your own purposes. I appreciate what you did by bringing your own decision making out in the public here.

We obviously live in a world where our own ethics are often questioned on the basis of legality. But ethics are not legalities, they are far more important. They define how we privately evaluate ourselves.

For many, morality and ethics are inconsequential, but I personally believe they are our most important personal possessions and should never be given away without serious consideration.

The internet has unfortunately become a place where people make their own privacy public, often without considering the consequence. It may not be intelligent to do so, but it is their own decision. To do that to someone else without their knowledge or consent may not be illegal, but to me it is certainly unethical.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Worst thing that can happen is that you are requested to take it down.

No, no, IMHO far worse things could happen.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

I think, I may have to sue Google. They have a picture of my house with me opening my car, ready to go to work. I do remember the van driving slowly with a big antenna-type camera on top, but I did not give my permission. Has Google been sued because of that?

Two examples come to mind:

1. Guy smoking outside his office building. Google street view outed him as a smoker when he was telling everyone he was clean.

2. Google "Google street view Montreal woman" for another example.

 

[Mackinaw]

Maybe the following will help you with your dilemma, or maybe not.

A couple of years ago I took some semi-nude pics of a very attractive friend of mine. One was absolutely excellent, probably one of the best portraits I ever took. There was nothing sexual about it, but it captured her beauty and curves perfectly. My model friend absolutely loves the picture, but since she works for a public agency and is fairly well known in our small town, she has asked me not to show this picture to anybody, so I haven’t.

So, one of the best portraits I’ve ever taken is destined not to be seen by anybody but me, her, and anybody she cares to show this picture to. I’m OK with that. My friendship with her means more than any accolades I may get because I took a good pic.

Jim B.