Nude Photography?

[bobatkins]

<p>Is this what they mean by "nude photogrtaphy"?</p>

<p>http://picayuneitem.com/local/x409207871/Man-in-cemetery-IDed</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Amazing how people keep thinking of new ways to embarrass themselves, and I wonder if a judge would believe his explation.</p>

[keith_jackson3]

<p>I have been asked in the past if I did any nude photography. My reply is always the same, "No. I keep my clothes on when taking pictures. I find that is the best way to keep my subjects from screaming and running away. Especially when I was asked to take pictures at the surprise birthday party for the Mother Superior at the local Catholic school."<br>

Keith</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>An interesting article, but aside from the silliness of orb photography in the nude, I wonder what this fellow could properly be charged with. If it took a remote game camera to catch him, then it seems he could normally have done his hobby in the dark without interruption and never actually exposing himself to anyone. If I were in his place (not that I would be - it's COLD up here!) I'd fight the charge. Except in degree, how does this differ from, say, pulling over to the side of the road to relieve oneself in the shelter of a bush, out of sight of passers-by. If some snoop put a game camera there, would you suddenly be guilty of public flashing?</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Interesting argument, Matthew, but here's another way of looking at it:</p>

<p>I would akin this act to running a red light - if no one was there to catch you, did you break the law? The courts would probably say yes if a hidden camera caught you because running a red light is against the law, no exceptions. So the question is, is there a law prohibiting no clothing in the cemetary? </p>

<p>I think peeing on the side of a road is also against the law; part of the reason why truckers use plastic bottles.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>yet another example of the surveillance society gone buck wild. this guy should have had a bit more discretion, but it doesn't mean the police and prosecutors couldn't show a little themselves. i think a stern warning would've been sufficient in this case, in which no one was harmed -- and plenty of folks were no doubt amused. </p>

[shawngibson]

<p>Albert Einstein grabbed a camera to prove that light bends. So he walked to his local cemetary and aimed his nifty camera at a star during an eclipse. He proved, with his results, that light bends.</p>

<p>If he was naked in that cemetary, he'd have been forgotten long ago...and besides, there's a good reason pro cameras block stray light from the viewfinder with the flick of a switch...it's to make sure no one sees you naked while you're taking your photographs, (hey what with reflections, parallax error, mythology and cow milk, it IS possible to project yourself into the image even behind the camera, that's what witches are for).</p>

<p>Are there any naked pics of Copernicus? Just curious...</p>

[phyrpowr]

<p>Michael, a case here in NC quite some years ago ruled that urination on the side of the road, if the person was making some effort to conceal himself (but wasn't totally successful) was NOT public exposure/indecency, the intent of the accused being the determining factor.</p>

<p>In the above cited case, it would also seem that intent is the key: did this guy intend to show himself to the public, or was he acting with reasonable expectation of privacy?</p>

<p>I too gave up nude photography, due more to the "sunburn factor"</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>This is absolutely not "nude photography."</p>

<p>Given where it happened, however, it most certainly is "buck nekkid photography".</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Jack, I'm smiling because I'm <em>imagining</em> an argument that the guy had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" because only dead people (and those <em>dying</em> to get in) are expected in cemeteries.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Cuckoo.......cuckoo........cuckoo</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Go number 4 in the Phototoons portfolio @ http://www.elliotterwitt.com/lang/en/index.html</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Wow, Ellis, that is some great stuff!</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I don't think this is quite comparable to running a red light. That is always illegal. I think generally the rule for indecent exposure is that it is done in public, and that brings about the question of what public. I would certainly agree that this incident was at the very least imprudent, but if done at a time and place when one could reasonably expect to be unobserved, it's at least a gray area.</p>

<p>Wacko orb photographers would do better here in Vermont, where there is no law against public nudity.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_s]

<p>People sure can be constipated. It's hard to see who the victim of this 'crime' was. </p>

<p>Who's weirder-- this guy, or the cops who thought they had to take his mugshot in an orange coverall, like he was a real criminal? </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Amazing how people keep thinking of new ways to embarrass themselves...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, taking pictures of orbs.</p>

[bojepsen1]

<p>I find myself thinking alongside the same lines as Dave here. Why is it necessary to make him look like a serious criminal and put his name and adress in the paper? He did something slightly weird, for whatever reason, and now he'll be known forever as 'that pervy bloke down the street who belongs in an asylum'. That's just uncalled for.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>At this time of year !? OK, so he's eccentric but he ain't gonna upset the residents, is he?</p>

[terrygilroy]

<p>Just a simple case of over exposure</p>

[keith_jackson3]

<p>With the topic having moved to public nudity for a bit, I thought that I would add a comment. I remember reading a while back about a young man who felt the need to relieve himself outside and apparently was seen doing so. He was then required to register as a sex offender. Just a little something more to think about.<br>

Keith</p>