Would this stop you?

[Ed]

Here in the UK, the Law Commission is looking to update laws regarding naked or intimate photos. This seems to be taking two forms, first adding more cases to the rules (ie down-blousing and deepfakes) and second, increasing the requirement for consent (and therefore proof of consent).

Information is vague right now, and I think we’ll be fine, BUT just in case of the worst-case scenario:

 

If I had to check government-issued ID of anyone being posted in photos/videos on this site, would that stop you from participating?

 

Also, I don’t know where it will leave the photography by the public of people doing WNBR and Tiger Streak. These events rely on the publicity generated by photos/videos to get their message across. Getting consent would be borderline impossible.

Arthur likes this

[David]

Hopefully it will include aggressive photography at wnbr.

Hopefully anything creepy.

 

Consent is a good way forward.

[Ed]

Getting rid of the publicity would heavily undermine the point of it. The nudity is to attract attention.

Paul likes this

[Gary]

I wouldn’t be worried about providing Government issued photo id, obviously assuming you adhere to GDPR and Data Security.

For WNBR & Tiger Streak, would a disclaimer about “participation means providing permission” cover this – or would it put off people?

[Ed]

I wouldn’t keep copies of ID.

 

To be honest, if ID became a requirement, I suspect the community would have to shut down. GDPR is an unintelligible nightmare and I don’t have time or money for that.

[David]

It’s not the participants’ problem, it’s the photographers.

With tiger streak (which will never happen again) you gave permission to be photographed when you signed up.

 

With wnbr in uk, organisers of most rides now deter photographers who arent riding from being at the start and end.

 

 

 

[Ed]

Bristol did say theirs would recommence after they had completed their move. London Zoo I’ve heard nothing about theirs. I’m sure there was another zoo that did some but I can’t find them now.

[Mark Oz]

I think if you start requiring ID that would be the end of your experiment. Didn’t your government try something similar with access to adult websites and then give up in the end?

 

[Ed]

They are constantly working on that idea. Laws have been proposed in various forms at least four times, but always fail in reality. The infrastructure just isn’t there.

I’ll keep doing the Naked Experiments regardless. I’ve always required ID for those and it’s easier to check in person. Most of the participants find out about them via social media or the experiment reports on Amazon, not the website. To be honest the website has been very poor for promoting the experiments.

I would probably keep the blog running and maintain the description pages for the experiments, but close down the forums, dares and Vote-Offs.

[Ed]

The adult site industry has always been an easy target but has been protected by the enormous tax revenue the government received from it. However over the past few years, the industry has been eroded severely by minor law changes, free content and V**a and M**t**c**d rule changes and increased fees. (In case you are wondering, I am NOT permitted to use their names.)

There are a lot fewer sites, making considerably less money and that protects them much less from government virtue signalling.

[Anonymous]

It would stop me uploading photos I’d taken myself, which in practice means pictures of me.

I assume photos taken at naked events are subject to the same laws/rules/guidance/ethics as any other street photography, which seems to boil down to getting someone’s consent if they’re clearly identifiable in the photo. I sometimes put my “tourist” photos on social media and I occasionally pixellate someone’s face if they’re in clear view. It can very easily happen in cafes.

In the unlikely situation that I got someone to pose for me, I’d want to be clear with them about how they wanted the photos used. That’s not just about paid work – it would be the same if a topless woman was enjoying having her photo taken on the beach. Having an exhibitionist moment isn’t the same as giving consent for any use of the photos, even though there would be a huge risk that would happen.

Having said that, some of the best street photos from the past were taken covertly and show close-ups of individuals, but that was before the internet came along I suppose, and I’m always curious about other people’s body shapes so I take far too many photos with other people in the background.

[Ed]

I’ve researched this a few times. In the UK, if you are just sharing photos on social media or a blog etc, and the people you photograph are in public and on public land (ie not in someone’s garden or a farmer’s field etc.) then they have a reasonable right to expect to be photographed and therefore you do not need permission. Obviously, there are rules around not causing a nuisance, but casually catching someone in a scene definitely does not require consent.

However, it’s nicer to ask for consent if you can.

likes this

[Mark Oz]

Checking someone’s ID in person is a lot easier because you’re not going to take a photo of it.

Having to send a digital copy of one’s ID via email or the web is a totally different thing. That would turn off a lot of people, I think.

likes this

[Ed]

Exactly. It means that side of things can continue.

[David]

I hope this is not the case, because its causing what you call the gender imbalance at wnbr.

 

 

[Ed]

Essentially if you are on public land and have reasonable expectation you may be photographed, then the photographer is protected.

If it wasn’t like this, taking photos at events and attractions would be totally impossible as you’d need signed permission from EVERYONE who might be in your photo.

The whole point of the WNBR is to attract attention. It’s a publicity engine for a cause and it works very well.

[David]

I dont want to row, but taking photos to leer at rather than support the aims of wnbr is not okay.

Id say it’s taking advantage of the riders beliefs.

 

That why i think it should be made a crime

 

 

[Ed]

There’s a difference between something being unsavoury and needing to be illegal. I’m not sure how you could enforce something being legal or not depending on the thoughts of the person taking the photo.

The other alternative would be making all public-space photography illegal, which is draconian to say the least.

[Anonymous]

If WNBR is essentially a protest, it must be intended to cause a reaction. That may be from people saying it’s disgusting (see any discussion about it on Facebook!) or silly boys getting excited about naked breasts. By participating, you’re sort-of donating your nakedness to the cause. People will see you naked, they’ll complain that you’re doing something unacceptable, they’ll hide photos of you in their wardrobe for future – um – enjoyment, but you’re giving up some of your body-privacy in the name of safer cycling.

If it is essentially a celebration of freedom, a bit like Pride perhaps, you’re still using your body to make a point about your freedom to do what you like with your body. That point only gets made if people react to it, so maybe it’s still essentially a protest.

If it’s just an excuse to do some sunbathing (or rain or snow or hail-bathing) then does that make it a more private experience? If I want to spend time naked, I can make better use of the time if I spend it with friends or strangers in a big group. I’m then not trying to prove anything or protest about anything. I’m not looking for publicity. I don’t particularly want to be photographed, certainly not close-up. That’s not why I’m there.

If (here comes a huge over-stretch of reality) I was an 18-year-old female participating in WNBR, what happens when I want to become a primary school teacher or a vicar, or eventually a newsreader, MP or magistrate? Yes, I got naked as a protest. Yes I got naked as a celebration. Yes I got naked for fun when I was bored. Is there a scale of acceptability? I’ve never been any of those things, but I imagine protest is a good thing for a teacher or vicar but no-excuse in-yer-face exhibitionism is a bad thing for several careers.

I think I’d be happy photographing a group but not recognisable individuals, and the same if I was being photographed. I’d be happy photographing someone who clearly wanted to be photographed, and I’d have to assume they were happy with the (extremely unlikely) consequences if they ever fancied a career change.

I once came across a mixed group of topless friends on the beach at Bournemouth. They were enjoying their freedom to play some sort of football game whilst showing each other their bodies as part of their enjoyment. I was sad I didn’t have my camera with me – I saw someone else take a photo and they essentially posed for it, but I sometimes wonder how they felt the next day when they were back at work thinking of each other’s bodies and everyone who had seen them and kept photos.

Ed likes this

[Ed]

Some excellent points there. I think some of them apply to social media in general not just regarding nudity. If a teenager posts a photo of themselves extremely drunk or making rude gestures or with “questionable” political views, those can also seriously impact future careers etc.

I suspect the current generation is heading into a world of pain on that front.

 

Nudity for a generally acceptable protest can be argued to be fine BUT you don’t always get to argue the point. You just won’t get the job, or when there’s a staff reorganisation, you suddenly don’t have a job anymore. Also, who decides which protests are acceptable and which are not. WNBR is reasonable safe, I would argue, but can you say the same about the annual Slut Walks?

Maybe the problem is that we always think of there being a clear line between work life and private life and that has become very blurred now with photos and videos being shared widely online and businesses using the web to do character checks on people.

 

likes this

[Author]

Posts