... and watching you
>>16740308
mercy...
This thread is fantastic.
i don't undestrand
it's ok to stay naked in public but they feel ashamed or upset if you take a picture? bah...
>>16741045
dude it is rude to take a picture of anyone in public, clothed or otherwise. if you don't see why this is frowned upon then you missed the boat on how social life works
I really like how they're slightly annoyed because someone's taking a picture of them fully naked but don't try to cover up
>>16741094
Thank you.
>>16740735
i think she's on to him
>>16741094
Bullshit. When you are in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. I'm not saying someone should rush at you to get your pix, or stalk you or the such. But you know when you are out and about you can't expect privacy.
My stupid ex-sister-in-law used to bitch about guys staring at her tits. My brother finally got fed up with it and said, "You wear a low-cut top without a bra when we go out because you are so proud of your tits, but then you don't want guys to look?"
>>16743304
But staring at someone wearing a low cut shirt, and taking creeper shots on a nude beach are two different things, but I shouldn't have to explain that to you dude. Get your head out of your ass. Your ex sister in law was Put herself in a position to demand attention and guess what, even SHE wasn't signing up for a public erotic photo shoot for some creepy dude. Creepshots are creepshots, despite who the creep is and despite who they're creeping on. Stop being fuckin dumb.
>>16740994
it truly is.
>>16743459
If you put your wares on display, people will look, and sometimes, people will steal. You take the risk hoping that the positive results will prevail.
That's how it has been since the dawn of time. You can despise it, but it's not going to change.
Anon isn't saying it is ok. He is just stating the facts.
>>16743304
Just because there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" doesn't mean that it isn't rude. It IS rude, depraved, and an invasion. Of course, you do have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in public, so your point is moot.
Also, "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term, so lets get legal. It IS illegal (in the US) to take nude photos of someone without their consent, now I grant you that there aren't nude beaches in the US but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that there are similar laws elsewhere, and there are almost certainly rules and laws governing what you can and can't do on a nude beach regarding pictures.
The issue here isn't taking pictures of someone in public, it's taking nude pictures of someone in a place where they do have the expectation that they are safe from such behavior.
>>16743514
There's no "reasonable expectation of privacy in public" you nutter.
It's also not remotely an invasion.
>it is illegal to take nude photos without their consent
No, it's actually not.
>not nude beaches in US
Do you have any fucking clue about what you're talking about on *any* of the points?
Why would you "expect" no one can or will photograph you nude while you're in a public space? That's just fucking idiocy.
flat asses everywhere
>>16743459
get a load of this sperg
i thought the whole point of doing this was NOT to get caught?
>>16743556
He does have a point. When I was studying film and video in college, we were required to get people's permission to be seen in any footage we shot where they appeared. Most people weren't bothered, but I can understand the precaution. Granted, these are still photographs, but I'd gather the same rules may apply, even if they can't really be enforced strictly.
>>16743514
The (willful?) ignorance in your post is astounding.
>>16740725
Cute
>>16743459
Yes, shit for brains, she was. If the guy got up close to her or stalked her that would be one thing. If he takes pictures of her tits from across the street, it is on her.
>>16743514
>Of course, you do have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in public,
No, you don't you moron.
>It IS illegal (in the US) to take nude photos of someone without their consent,
Not if they are in public, moron.
If they are at a private, nudist resort, then they know the rules and some may say no pictures. But then again, they are at a PRIVATE, nudist resort.
>it's taking nude pictures of someone in a place where they do have the expectation that they are safe from such behavior.
And when you are at a public beach, you don't have that expectation.
It is like the guy who sued the red-light camera that took a picture of him and his mistress. He said it was an invasion of his privacy. What privacy? He was in a car in public.
And what is so stupid about this is that even if the photos make the web, who cares? She's more likely to be recognized by someone who is at the beach at the same time. And, from what I gather, women in countries where this is an acceptable thing at beaches, don't care if someone they know from work or such sees their tits at the beach.
>>16744640
Different standards. Plus, TV shows do it all of the time where people are filmed in the back ground and no one is signing a release. They are more likely to do that when the person is actually interviewed, but not always.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in public. It is rude to listen in on a conversation, but not illegal. At the same time, you are stupid if you have a conversation in public which you wouldn't want anyone to over-hear and repeat.
Same thing here. Don't want anyone to take pictures of your tits, don't take them out in public.
Now, I'm glad they do take them out in public, I'm just saying that unless someone is being intrusive/aggressive, then they have nothing to complain about.
>>16746398
Oh you poor child. Such a lack of understanding of basic concepts.
If I had one regret, it would be that I don't have the time to educate little kids like yourself. I will have to live life knowing that there are people out there that are barely able to figure out which shoe goes on which foot.
>>16746415
>If I had one regret, it would be that I don't have the time to educate little kids like yourself
I hope this means that you are either going to die soon or kill yourself soon.
When you are in public, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Period.
It, like you, is just that simple.
>>16740371
Nice camel-toe.
>>16740380
More of these girls
>>16740720
It's like she's looking back to make sure her legs are spread enough that everyone can see her pussy.
Thank you!
>>16744640
That was for productions though. If you plan to make money off the production you need consent wavers. Private usage you do not.
Anyone live near/ take voyeur shots at Blacks Beach in CA? I go there with my gf.
>>16749935
And of course, there is all of the paparazzi photographs. I mean, you KNOW Emma Watson signed a release for that photo which was taken where you could see her pussy hair.
Being in public pretty much negates your right to privacy. I'm still not saying you should have someone get up in your face to take your picture, but you don't have much right to expect your picture won't be taken if you are in a public place.
>>16753920
Don't know about other countries but here in The Netherlands you can take pictures of someone in public if they are in a group, but if you take a picture of just them, you have to ask for permission.
>>16753037
I live in pacific beach, so yeah
It's not relevant if it's legal or not to take pictures in a public place, the thing is what you do with your picture.
If you keep your photo for yourself and fap everyday i'm sure there's no problem, even if you post it here or in your tumblr maybe there isn't also.
BUT, making money with that "stolen" pics, sincerely, it seems to me something that should not be legal.
Do you want a paying website with top-less beach photos? Perfect, pay some models to go to the beach and do your stuff, don't use other ppl image to do so without any kind of consent or retribution, asshole.
>>16743459
>wahhhhh expressing ideas in words is hard
>just agree with me because i say so waaaahhhh
>do it or i'll call you mean names waaaahhhhhhhhhhh
>>16741094
Why do so many autistic women / white knights on the internet try to declare How Social Life Wrks because they're whiny babies who can't handle how social life actually works, such as: people can take your picture in public, stop crying about it you pisschild
I've shot a couple that qualify for the thread.
>>16757531
>>16757533
>>16757534
>>16757490
>BUT, making money with that "stolen" pics, sincerely, it seems to me something that should not be legal.
>Do you want a paying website with top-less beach photos? Perfect, pay some models to go to the beach and do your stuff, don't use other ppl image to do so without any kind of consent or retribution, asshole.
It may seem to you that it should not be legal, but it is. See the post about paparazzi.
It's like this, everyone--
We're all here to fap to the fact that taking these pictures is a transgressive act. I know I am.
Is it legal? Most of the time, for most of these pictures, it was. Maybe a few from a private nude beach got slipped in, but the majority don't break any actual laws.
Is it a dick move and in bad taste? Of course. It's easy to hate on the paparazzi. Night Crawler was a fun and creepy-ass movie about our love/hate relationship with them. ...but isn't this borderline behavior most of the reason why we like these pictures?
Love this one
>>16758086
Plastick
>>16740735
FUCKED
UP
NAILS
>>16758091
No, it is Eva Sonnet. google it
oc
>>16758076
>At the beach with two of your bros
>See this
>One of you has to take the grenade
