QUT Law Lecturer Kelley Burton thinks that it should be illegal to photograph or film topless sunbathers unless they give their permission http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20724123-1702,00.html. I imagine she means only female topless sunbathers, or taking any sort of a photograph on a beach would be a bureaucratic nightmare.

I'm of the opinion that we live in a neurotic age, and the tendency to want to limit the occasions where one can take photographs is just one example of it.

Burton is a womon of many talents, including mind-reading. She reckons that;

"...when a woman is sunbathing topless she is merely consenting to other people observing her with the naked eye, in that place...

"Her consent doesn't stretch to other people photographing her and then exposing the photographs all over the internet."

I'd say that any woman who sunbathes topless ought to do so in private, or be treated just like any other sunbather. Not sure what her feminist sisters would say about Burton, but it would appear to be a backward step for equality. When I sunbathe topless I'd be delighted if people photographed me.

Later Burton also commends a ban on photographing children, presumably in case paedophiles enjoy the photos. All this smacks of a primitive view of photographs and pictures. When natives objected to photographs being taken of them it was because they thought that having a picture of them gave someone else power over them.

Likewise, the objection to taking photos of something that can be seen and enjoyed by the naked eye seems to smack of a fear that somehow something which is subsequently done to the photo has a power over the subject. This is a magical, not a modern, view of the world.

Isn’t female topless bathing in public technically illegal anyway, at least in Queensland?

The first thing we need to do is bring the law, and the policing regime, into line with acceptable practice.

Only after we have got past this extraordinary duplicity between legality and condoned practices, and determined exactly what is legal and acceptable behaviour, can we even start to sort out what is or is not acceptable behaviour by others that results from that behaviour

I'm all for topless sunbathing and I think everyone has a right to refuse being photographed. Especially topless females in a society where women are modest about revealing their bodies to the world and covering up such area's is the social norm.

At the very least reporters and associated cameramen should be forced to seek permission. For the simple reason that I detest such lying media vultures and anything which makes their lives a little harder is almost always going to get my support.

Reporters are largely biased corrupt scumbags.

Graham, the problem is that the developing technology of image production and publication has got way ahead of changes in our understanding of public and private space. Most of us assume that the public space in which we place ourselves is that space which we can check out: you can choose to sunbake topless or not given the social cues that allow that: e.g. it's a beach, others are topless, no one around is likely to be offended. New technologies, especially digital photography and ubiquitous camera phones, together with the net, mean that what we thought was a particular type of public space might in fact turn out to be something quite different.

Everyone perves.(I know Christians deny it, but I don't believe them.) But there is a crucial difference between perving which occurs discreetly within an individual human skull and that which results in images in public spaces out of the control of the pervee.

Do it in public... take what comes. If you flaunt ur attributes in a public place.. I think its highly hypocritical to then think you can limit who sees you.

The stupidity of this act, is why the heck should she be worried about being posted on the internet bare breasted when she is already exposed to public eyes on the beach. She doesn't have the slightest clue:

a) What others are thinking
b) Who they are.

So, if someone takes a 'pervy' line with her nakedness on that beach, but perhaps hides his actual eye direction behind sunglasses, hmmmm whats the diff between that and someone getting a bit of a cheap thrill behind a computer monitor ?

The simple fact that she is worried about internet exposure means she KNOWS there is a dark side to such exposure.

This idea that we can do what we like and then 'controllllllllll' everyone else by some dimwitted idea of 'consent' is plain ludicrous.

Its just the same as flooding youth Tv with objectifying sexualized images and 'Gotcha' segments on youth FM stations (where people are HUMILIATED and DEGRADED and SADISTICALLY ANNOYED for PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT) and then thinking the objectifying sexualized 'use' of another human by the Werribee teens is not to be expected.

Werribee was just 'Gotcha+MTV+Existential self affirmation (If it feels good..DO it)'

In a world without reference to God.... why is this inherently 'wrong and evil' ?

Garbage IN....Garbage OUT.....

So, if ya wanna go topless.. take what comes.

OOps..I just noticed Snouts little jibe :) "Christians deny it, but I don't believe them"...

woooo.. now there's a challenge

Lets just say.. while we are aware of the short distance between a look and a perv, show me the man who is not switched on by the sight of well shaped bare breasts and I'll show you pigs flying :)

Hmmm now is this 'his' fault or hers :) ?

Yes well - you'd know, wouldn't you Boazy?

Actually, I agree with the general notion that if one goes nude or topless in a public space, then one should be prepared to be seen and for one's image to be recorded legitimately. If the idea of one's nude or semi-nude image being promulgated on the Internet or anywhere is worrisome, then perhaps one should not expose oneself in public spaces.

Of course, I imagine that for most people it's simply a non-issue.

GrahamY,

2 cents worth:
"...when a woman is sunbathing topless she is merely consenting to other people observing her with the naked eye, in that place...
"Her consent doesn't stretch to other people photographing her and then exposing the photographs all over the internet."

This argument is probably valid for nude, special or private beaches maybe. But going to public beaches and asking the society and police to stop every looker and tourist with a camera is at best irresponsible.

Food for thoughts,

Some thoughts one this.
- Most of us make choices regarding aspects of our behaviour according to who is around. A topless bather might be more comfortable amongst close friends and complete strangers than in front of office collegues. Use of photographs takes that ability from us.
- I think the subject of the picture should carry some weight in this issue. Should I be banned from taking a picture of my child playing on the beach because someones breasts might be visible in the background? I think not. On the other hand should I be allowed to walk up and take a close up of those same breasts? I think most of us would see that differently. Then we get into issues of camera resolution, power of zoom lenses and other stuff that makes that boundary had to define.
- Should we let the abusers control what the rest of us do and don't do. I think not.

Summary, I think that some people are to keen to limit other peoples freedoms to enhance their own. Why should a photographer have their freedoms stomped on to improve the topless sunbathers sense of comfort?

About as valid as suggesting that topless sunbathers be banned because they might limit the freedom of puritan photographers to take pictures on the beach (they might be uncomfortable with a nipple in their picture).

R0bert

I take a position midway between complete freedom in respect of photography and complete prohibition.

To my mind, anyone who's in a public place is fair game for being photographed. The issue of nudity, or partial nudity, should be irrelevant.

On the other hand, it seems to me that if anyone's image is published on the Internet, then that person should have the right to insist on its removal except where other considerations apply. Other considerations would be things such as

a) The person's presence in the picture is incidental to its main purpose.

b) The presence of the image on the internet is in the public interest. Essentially this would be similar to one of the defences that exists in defamation cases.

There could be a take-down rule that is similar to that for alleged copyright infringement.

Of course, one difficulty with this is that once the photograph has been taken, it can be placed on a web site anywhere in the world. To give effect to the take-down rules would require international agreements such as exist, to some extent, for copyright.

On the question of whether it is unlawful for a woman to be topless on a public beach, there are no state laws in Australia that expressly prohibit it. The only laws that can be applied are those relating to offensive behaviour, or where a council has passed a bylaw, or erected signs (NSW) to prohibit people being topless.

In QLD, it's doubtful whether a woman could be prosecuted for being topless anywhere that a man can go topless, because the Anti Discrimination Act would appear to prevent the police from discriminating on grounds of sex when applying the law, and prevent councils from passing bylaws that discriminate.

“Do it in public... take what comes. If you flaunt your attributes in a public place”

David, that could be interpreted as Sheik Hilali type of remark (or remark attributed to him?), if you now what I mean.

Whether a woman is topless or not, on a public beach, it would be inappropriate for someone to come up and take a photo of her without asking.

That’s a basic matter of common decency and violation of personal space or the right to be in public without being harassed or unduly bothered.

We also need to think of just how photos can be used, in ways completely different to the context in which they were taken.

So yes, there should be some restrictions on photographing people in public. However, it cannot be to the extent that a single bikini-clad woman on the beach, 200 metres away, prevents someone from taking a scenic photo of that beach.

So to just what extent such restrictions should apply is a matter of debate.

.
Sylvia

“To my mind, anyone who's in a public place is fair game for being photographed.”

Yes, but not in an overt manner, where they are the soul subject of the photo, unless they give their permission.

I agree; a middle of the road interpretation is needed here.

“On the question of whether it is unlawful for a woman to be topless on a public beach, there are no state laws in Australia that expressly prohibit it. The only laws that can be applied are those relating to offensive behaviour…”

But it is illegal to go nude in public, which is automatically considered offensive behaviour, for males at least. Bare bums on public beaches appear to be acceptable too, in many situations. So is nudity specifically defined as uncovered nether regions?

“In QLD, it's doubtful whether a woman could be prosecuted for being topless anywhere that a man can go topless…”

I find that hard to believe. In the crowd at the cricket is one example where men can go shirtless but it would surely not be tolerated for women.

Ludvig,

There is no specific prohibition in QLD state law against nudity in public. There is a prohibition against wilful exposure of the genitals in a public place, but with a defence of reasonable excuse. It is only the reasonable excuse defence that allows you to undress in a public changing room, so in QLD the question of whether you can be nude on a beach is determined by whether you have a reasonable excuse. I would have thought that the fact that a beach is a defacto nude beach would be a reasonable excuse, though as yet, the only court to consider the issue, a magistrates court, has not supported my view.

In any case, the breasts are not genitals, so exposing them is not caught by that law.

In NSW, there is a prohibition against being in the nude on beaches (and some other places) except for some specified beaches, and beaches made clothing optional by councils. However, note that the law uses the expression "in the nude". A person who is topless is not described as being "in the nude" so that law does not prevent people from being topless.

As for a woman being topless at the cricket in QLD, to the best of my knowledge the question of whether the Anti Discrimination Act prevents the police from prosecuting women but not men has never been tested. No doubt the police would arrest a woman who did it and refused to put her top on, but that doesn't make it unlawful

Graham,
Me thinks your lecturer wants her cake and eat it too.

There are so many cameras around today that one can be photographed in any public, and private, place at any time. There all types of surveillance cameras at work 24/7, in businesses, public carparks and all manner of places. If you don't want to be caught on camera doing something you shouldn't or that may later embarrass you, then do it inside your own home.

Instead of costly patrols by police on some beaches. How long before it is more cost effective to survey the beach by camera and I bet those monitering will have the ability to zoom in on any situation of interest? So if madam wants nice tanned breasts, she had better sunbake at home if she is worried about cameras.

The likelyhood of having cameras banned in some public places is plain silly and as for asking permission, a good zoom lens would mean she may never know her picture was taken.

Sylwia, it seems like the law on this issue is as hairy as dog’s breakfast !!

But then, I’m not surprised. Over the last few years, one of my developing concerns has been just how out of whack the law is with accepted practice and common sense…and why there isn’t an imperative to reform laws and make them as clear as possible, whenever there is any vagueness or ambiguity evident. It seems that all manner of laws could so easily be straightened out. Doesn’t the community deserve the right to know exactly where they stand with the law, as far as is possible, without having to do a law degree??

Alright, I’ll get off my high horse over that issue!

“No doubt the police would arrest a woman who did it and refused to put her top on, but that doesn't make it unlawful”

I dare say you are right. And doesn’t that open up a whole nuther can of worms….the police arresting people for things that are not illegal I mean!

.
“The likelyhood of having cameras banned in some public places is plain silly and as for asking permission, a good zoom lens would mean she may never know her picture was taken.”

Yair Banjo, of course it is going to be virtually impossible to stop people taking pictures in a surreptitious manner. But there is still merit in prohibiting brazen in-your-face photography, for obviously dodgy reasons.

In my last post, ‘soul’ should of course been ‘sole’ (:>)

BD, "Hmmm now is this 'his' fault or hers :) ? " - maybe it does not have to be a "fault" thing. I know your religion has some stuff to say on the matter but for many of us we don't need to have fault or guilt attached to enjoying the look of a well formed human body.

That idea has probably had it's use at some time in our distant past but I think body taboo's and fault/guilt about the wrong things are causing more harm than help nowdays.

Silvia and Ludwig thanks for your informative contributions to this discussion. Sylvia your points about the law have been very interesting.

R0bert

Further to what others have said, if Al Hilali had engaged Boaz as his speech writer, then perhaps Hilali could have expressed basically the same sentiments, but in a way which would have been more acceptable to many Australians.

And as GrahamY has said [and I said in a previous thread], surely we are not like the primitives who allegedly believed that if someone had their photo, then they held some kind of mystical power over them.

Basically, the problem lies with people being brainwashed into thinking that various parts of their bodies are obscene, offensive and automatically taboo, and the religious/political control freaks who write this nonsense into law. I am not suggesting that nudity could or should be acceptable anywhere, we are no longer a nomadic/hunting/pastoral, well spread-out society. But on a beach, for goodness sake, what is more normal, natural, healthy, comfortable and convenient than being nude?

As I stated on Sylvia's nudity topic, my very wise mother gave me some very good tips on body acceptance when I was first becoming body-conscious as a young boy. And then I, and others who take a rational view of this, have to put up with illogical moralising from those who did not benefit from this kind of sensible upbringing.

Yes, we're now in a technological age. Many people are intrusively ill-mannered, either to satisfy their own unpleasant desires, or to make money. And there's probably little we can do about it. But it's not so long ago that navels, midriffs, knees, thighs and other feminine attributes were generally "off-limits", but now no big deal. Time marches on, that is unless the natural progressive relaxation of unnecessary taboos is artificially interfered with by the aforementioned control freaks.

We're now experiencing some good weather and already we can see girls and women who are branding themselves with an assortment of unsightly strap-marks from bathers, which spoil their appearance when they are wearing off-the-shoulder and backless dresses etc. None of my business of course, but how many of them really want to look like that?

Rex it was interesting that nobody tried to argue against the point of Sylvia's topic. BD made some points but did not seem to support prohibition, others remained silent. All the while most of our politicians find clothing optional beaches are in the too hard basket.

Is it one of those issues which could play havoc with the reputation of any politician who championed it? I guess the media could have fun at the expense of politicians who took the issue seriously.

R0bert

“Basically, the problem lies with people being brainwashed into thinking that various parts of their bodies are obscene, offensive and automatically taboo, and the religious/political control freaks who write this nonsense into law.”

Absolutely Rex.

“But on a beach, for goodness sake, what is more normal, natural, healthy, comfortable and convenient than being nude?”

What indeed!

It is one of the silliest and sickest aspects of our society, that nudity per se should be considered offensive or taboo. We can’t even wander around our own back yard, or in our own house, if there is any chance of being seen by neighbours, for fear of them taking offence and dobbing us in for conducting illegal activities or shunning us for being a pervert. I mean how crazy is it?

[now, let me just reread this about 20 times… and see if I can actually put up a post with no bloody missing words!! !! !!]

Ludvig

"It is one of the silliest and sickest aspects of our society, that nudity per se should be considered offensive or taboo. We can’t even wander around our own back yard, or in our own house, if there is any chance of being seen by neighbours, for fear of them taking offence and dobbing us in for conducting illegal activities or shunning us for being a pervert."

I can't say that they won't dob you in, or shun you, but legally there's nothing to stop you going nude on your property if you're not visible from a public place. That is, I know of no law that prevents you going nude despite being visible to your neighbours.

Sylvia.

Thanks Sylvia, that’s news to me.

I don’t suppose you can refer me to where the relevant stuff is actually written in law.

I spend a lot of time in motel rooms too, where the same sort of thing applies. I just hate the concept of having to close the curtains because someone might see me naked or in my underwear.

There is still the issue of whether the strict legal situation matches general acceptable practice. I mean, people generally think that it is illegal to be seen naked in any situation other than a completely private one…. and I have no confidence that the police wouldn’t act on a complaint without bothering to find out the actual legal situation first. (Yes that’s right. I have no faith whatsoever that the police have a full understanding of the law that they are policing a lot of the time…..or that they really care too much either. It seems that police discretionary powers, or at least the way in which they are used (abused) extend beyond the law quite often…. and that they can just about always come up with something to justify their actions).

So, if nudity is legal if it is not visible from a public place, what about overt sexual acts?

Ludvig, I'll continue this in your rule of law thread. I think we've diverged a bit far here from the point of Graham's posting.

Sylvia.

With sophisticated photographic technology, covert photographing of citizens is happening regularly.

If this practice worries you, then don't expose your breasts in public places. If it doesn't, then go for it!

But you can't have it both ways!

the need to get that all over tan is puzzling, i mean - what is its immediate value away from the beach when fully clothed...where else would one show off your tannned tits as a 'public fashion statement'?

By the way, I've had brown tits all my life and no one has ever secretly photographed them...at least not as far as i know..

so-

if you go to beach (a popular tourist haven) don't think for a moment that everyone is using their camera's to take happy snaps..its the risk you take.

I remember recently seeing a group of girls interviewed who were working as topless hostesses at the Gold Coast Indy. This highly skilled work involved serving drinks without a shirt on. One girl said, 'it is great you can make $1500 per night just in tips.'

Perhaps the issue is not so much a lack of permission but a lack of payment.

Follow this link to see a nice pair of tits.
http://williamtasso.com/things/nice-tits.asp

Thanks Rainier

Being a devoted tit-watcher, er um I mean bird-watcher…of the feathered variety that is… that made my day!

I had no idea there were so many types of tits!!

Of course my favourite are the great tits (:>)

"the need to get that all over tan is puzzling, i mean - what is its immediate value away from the beach when fully clothed...where else would one show off your tannned tits as a 'public fashion statement'?"

I 've already touched upon the results of wearing bather and bikini tops, Rainier:

"We're now experiencing some good weather and already we can see girls and women who are branding themselves with an assortment of unsightly strap-marks from bathers, which spoil their appearance when they are wearing off-the-shoulder and backless dresses etc. None of my business of course, but how many of them really want to look like that?"

We all have our own opinions on how we want to look, both to others and to ourselves, and we're entitled to those opinions. Body shape, hairstyle and/or colour, clothing, facial hair [for men] or lack of it, tattoos, piercings etc, both obvious and [usually] concealed, the list is endless. And to achieve the required look can often cost plenty, in time, money and dedication.

Personally, I don't want to be piebald, and I haven't been for many, many years. My choice.

Back to the ladies. My second wife, who I sadly lost to cancer some years ago [nothing to do with skin cancer BTW] was a Ballroom/Latin dancer [as I am]. She was a former model and knew how to both make and wear beautiful evening dresses.She was also a trained belly-dancer, taught this artform for the WA Education Dept and performed at many shows and functions.

Regardless of what she was wearing, she never had a problem with bather marks, for the most obvious reason. She was openly envied by some of the other dancers, [clothed dancers BTW, not topless showgirls], who had the problem of either trying to cover bather marks, or reluctantly realising that they were, in their own view, stuck with a form of self-inflicted disfigurement.

And all this [what I would regard as possibly gross inconvenience] for really no good reason.

IMHO if someone is stupid enough to "sunbake" then let them.

However, if they want me to subsidise their subsequent treatment, in a public hospital or via Medicare, for their resultant skin cancer - then FORGET IT ! (It's just like smoking really - just a different trigger and organ).

"Sunbaking" is a dangerous activity. It is voluntary exposure to harmful radiation. A "tan" is the body's attempt to mitigate the radiation's effect on the skin.

As to the effect of some women wanting to expose their breasts or other body parts to the sun, then they will pay the price; one way or the other (sadly for some it's "the other", in an oncology ward).

This thread is about two main issues - customs and sexual mores regarding the display of the body in public. That is, if someone chooses to display their body, partly nude, in public - is it wrong to photograph it?

This appears to be simply an issue of copyright. Most professional photographers would be aware of their rights and obligations. If they aren't, they'd soon be educated once they tried to sell their output.

As for amateurs, well... that's a whole new kettle of fish. I reckon if you don't want someone to look, oggle or photograph - don't flash or flaunt it ! Simple human nature really.

For those who dislike bather strap marks but don't want to be topless on a public beach - a very simple tip:

Bikini or bather top straps can be dropped down whilst sunbaking without revealing one's "woofies"!

Rainier,
Me thinks it is called fashion and vanity that the young and not so young women don't want to have strap marks showing if they wear a backless dress. As an old drover said to me "they (wimmin) sure are funny cattle".

As for your brown tits, I'm the opposite, that pale I burn under a 40 watt light bulb and unluckily all my working life has been outdoors. But I survived thus far.

I liked your tits but they were all pommy ones. I reckon we could see more tits here on any given day than in ponny land.

See this link to a discussion paper by the attorney generals.

Internet Photos Discussion Paper
At a meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) in August 2003, Ministers agreed that all State and Territory officers would work in consultation to develop options for reform to address the issue of unauthorised publication of photographs being made available on websites, including ancillary privacy issues associated with the practice.
follow this link and scoll down to find the paper (in pdf foramt)
http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/agdhome.nsf/Page/RWP25F051AAA46D11B1CA256F9A007C0DE2

"IMHO if someone is stupid enough to "sunbake" then let them.

However, if they want me to subsidise their subsequent treatment, in a public hospital or via Medicare, for their resultant skin cancer - then FORGET IT ! (It's just like smoking really - just a different trigger and organ).

"Sunbaking" is a dangerous activity. It is voluntary exposure to harmful radiation. A "tan" is the body's attempt to mitigate the radiation's effect on the skin."

It's not a case of 'one size fits all', 11uvatar. The cancer information organisations had more credibility when they published charts showing how different skin types had different tolerance levels and susceptibility to sun damage, rather than try and scare us all along the lines of "9 minutes of sun and that's your lot!"

I am English born Caucasian [been here 44 years] with inherited olive skin from both sides of the family. My second wife was similar. I used to have regular skin checks with the same skin specialist. At 66, he told me that it was quite amazing, but my skin showed no signs of sun damage. I have practically lived in the sun most of my life. Another skin specialist who checked me about 3 years ago [at 69] told me I had no problems, but I could go back and see him in a couple of years "if I felt like it". You don't know me, so do I take your opinion or that of health professionals who know me and my health history?

cont

My second wife and I:
Never smoked or used drugs.
Light drinkers.
Never overweight.
Very physically active.
Healthy diet and sensible, knowledgeable use of supplements.

Downside:
For much of our lives were virtually forced to share others' smoke from family, friends and workplace, business and social situations. In addition, I was forced to share living-space smoke when I was in the Royal Navy and working on mine and building sites in NW WA.

In addition, my wife grew up near the combined UK nuclear establishments of Windscale/Sellafield. Check them out on Wikipedia for leaks, discrepancies etc. Just food for thought.

"For those who dislike bather strap marks but don't want to be topless on a public beach - a very simple tip:

Bikini or bather top straps can be dropped down whilst sunbaking without revealing one's "woofies"!"

Obviously doesn't work, Dickie, when it comes to having an even skin tone. But it does increase the likelihood of burning for those who don't know where they're protected and where they're not!

Rex

I'm in agreement with most of what you said. However, this topic is to do with women who go topless on the beach and Kelley Burton's objections to these women being photographed.

Perhaps you could start your own thread on the ignominious Sellarfield. I've done some research on this reactor and would be interested to hear your views.

"Woofies" !?! Sounds like a breakfast cereal... I don't think I should go there ;)

Here's a link to some gorgeous Aussie tits, occasionally seen in public places and backyards, apparently: http://birdsinbackyards.net/finder/display.cfm?id=159

Thanks CJ (and Banjo for suggesting it)

Those tits are simply beautiful. I saw a pair in my neighbours back yard on the weekend and wished I had my camera with me.

By the time I yelled out to the missus " Can you grab the camera, there's a great pair of tits next door that I want to take a picture of - they were gone.

PS. Have you got any idea how much roses cost these days?

Thanks for your comments, Dickie. I know I digressed, but my health related comments were in response to allegations of unfairly using up Medicare money, or something like that.

I love it when we find common ground and especially when some humour is introduced.

In regard to Sellafield, if you've done some research, then I'm happy for you to start this topic and I'll put my little pieces of info in. Together with a little digressing too, but if you see what I'm inclined to digress about on this, then I'm sure you'll understand.

The problem with topics on the possible/probable consequencies of what ladies choose to wear, or not wear, is this. These topics are usually debated on preconceived ideas of modesty, chastity, morality, legality, alleged effects on men, religion and so on. And actual experience, fairness and plain common sense often come a poor last. And alleged health issues are thrown in when possible opponents really have little else to say. Or maybe just for laughs!

Rex,

My comment was simply to state the following:
1. That "sunbaking" is a voluntary activity (currently, under the Howard Government);

2. It has attendant health risks (depending on a variety of factors e.g. skin type, one's ability to create melanin, time of exposure, intensity etc.);

3. My reluctance to subsidise treatment for possible patients who voluntarily expose themselves to such radiation. As I said: same for smoking - I think people who smoke should pay for their own rehabilitation, should they unfortunately contract cancer. (This is in keeping with the economic rationalist thinking of the Howard Government of the user pays principle). As for those of us who are affected by environmental factors (e.g. your exposure to smokers whilst working - I deeply understand. I have worked in pubs/clubs myself. Not fun if you don't smoke!)

As for exposed mammaries on the beach - my comments still stand. Expect to be oggled or photographed but keep a copyright / distribution contract tucked in your swimming costume !

If someone photographs you on the beach then *they* hold the copyright on the image. If they posted it on the web, and then you copied it, *you* would be in breach of *their* copyright.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

I'm not a lawyer, but in essence I think you may be right.

I don't know what the law says about consent for photography in a *public* place and whether one has any control over photographers at all (except by specific legislation). Over to the legal boffins here .....