Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
From: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe)
Newsgroups: net.rec.nude
Subject: RE: Re: Photography and Naturism
Message-ID: <197@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 16:01:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.197
Posted: Thu Jan 24 16:01:51 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 04:51:36 EST
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 30

>From: nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe)
>Subject: Re: Photography and Naturism
>Message-ID: <5634@rochester.UUCP>
>
>While I agree about the consideration part of this, there are plenty of
>test cases in the law books about the right of anyone to take anyone's
>picture in a public place.
>Nemo

This may apply to public nude beaches but what's the law  when  on  private
property   (eg:   clothing   optional  resorts).   I'd  think  unauthorized
photography in that circumstance would get you ejected, sans film,  at  the
very least.

Also, while taking a picture may be legal, distributing unauthorized copies
of  it,  whether for profit or not, can probably get you all kinds of legal
grief.  On the rare occasions that news photographers have taken my picture
in  public  they  always made a point of getting my name and permission for
use.  I doubt they'd bother if they didn't have to do it.

Maybe we should pose the question in net.legal?

-- 
==============================================================================
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI                               If thy CRT offend thee, pluck
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.                      it out and cast it from thee.
Santa Monica, California  90405
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe