# We were kicked out of the beach...



## cauzimme (Jul 2, 2017)

Last wednesday I ask a friend to do a photoshoot at the beach so I could use it in my portfolio, we went to Ardene, and bought some bodysuit and accessories and head out to the beach, the one I was seeking to do photo was closed so we head out to an another, we shot for maybe an hour, and then someone came and told us it was very innapropriate, way to sexy for children and parents, and that we were lacking respect, so they kick us out. It wasn't because photoshoot were not allowed theres were 2 other photoshoot going on, but with small children and yoga poses.  Yep what a ****ing dissapointment, we weren't loud, we weren't doing poses 0verly sexy, or being innapropriate at all, we were 2 girls having fun...


----------



## YassPro (Jul 2, 2017)

Sometimes I feel like we're still living in a different era. Things like this make my blood boil. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 2, 2017)

Who was this 'someone', and what authority did they have?


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 2, 2017)

I find it sad that today there are still some prude that can look at a situation and just because a camera is there it's bad.

Had this lady been laying on the beach or playing with a her child. Nobody would have said a thing but because someone was there taking her photo....suddenly a fully clothed woman is sexual. Guess these same people blush at the the Sears catalogue swimsuit section.

The beach near me girls that are too young run around wearing too little and no one bats an eye. I bet you would have run into a similar situation here with this lady that is wearing 4 times the clothing.


----------



## jpross123 (Jul 2, 2017)

I would have just kept on shooting, its a public area.


----------



## cauzimme (Jul 2, 2017)

YassPro said:


> Sometimes I feel like we're still living in a different era. Things like this make my blood boil.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



True! 



480sparky said:


> Who was this 'someone', and what authority did they have?



It was the lifeguard and it was directly after the last pose, so I told my model, okay let's do a yoga pose then since they are allowed pointing the other photographer and the lady says rudely, NO I SAID STOP, you need to leave... We were laying on the beach discussing a looking trought the photos and again she said, you have to leave, it's over girls... 
We paid 20$ to have access to the beach, and we couldn't even stay. 



zombiesniper said:


> I find it sad that today there are still some prude that can look at a situation and just because a camera is there it's bad.
> 
> Had this lady been laying on the beach or playing with a her child. Nobody would have said a thing but because someone was there taking her photo....suddenly a fully clothed woman is sexual. Guess these same people blush at the the Sears catalogue swimsuit section.
> 
> The beach near me girls that are too young run around wearing too little and no one bats an eye. I bet you would have run into a similar situation here with this lady that is wearing 4 times the clothing.



Exactly, i'm so frustrated, people are hypocrite! 



jpross123 said:


> I would have just kept on shooting, its a public area.



Well she was yelling at us, didn't really feel like shooting anymore.


----------



## YassPro (Jul 2, 2017)

jpross123 said:


> I would have just kept on shooting, its a public area.



I think, based on different situations that even if @cauzimme would have called the police, or te lifeguard would have called it, the police would have taken the lifeguard's side. That's the sad reality, those kind of people usually don't care if they go above the rule, is the people that don't matter. So it wouldn't have been worth it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jpross123 (Jul 2, 2017)

cauzimme said:


> Well she was yelling at us, didn't really feel like shooting anymore.


Yeah that probably did dampen the mood a bit...



YassPro said:


> I think, based on different situations that even if @cauzimme would have called the police, or te lifeguard would have called it, the police would have taken the lifeguard's side. That's the sad reality, those kind of people usually don't care if they go above the rule, is the people that don't matter. So it wouldn't have been worth it.



You're probably right. Our society is getting worse as the days go on.


----------



## DarkShadow (Jul 2, 2017)

I wouldn't have left if I did this kind of work for anyone other then a LE officer. stop letting no buddy's  push you around and stand your ground. I had a lady tell me I can't take pictures of the inside of  a coffee shop from the public side walk I said you want to bet and if you don't like it call the cops and she did.The cop came and told her nothing he could do and if she don't want people looking in or taking photos close the entry door. HaHa.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 2, 2017)

cauzimme said:


> .........It was the lifeguard .............



If it was a public beach, I would have just kept on shooting then.  Private beach, well, that's a whole other sticky wicket.

Part of the reason many in our society think they have authority is because people fold in a heartbeat to them.  We LET this kind of behavior propagate, and this empowers those who do not have authority into believing they do. And when those with no authority start demanding we surrender our rights (and we allow this to happen), then we no longer have those rights.

While I'm sure the laws in Canada are different than the US, I'm also pretty sure they're quite close.


----------



## DarkShadow (Jul 2, 2017)

Well said sparky.


----------



## Designer (Jul 2, 2017)

zombiesniper said:


> I find it sad that today there are still some prude that can look at a situation and just because a camera is there it's bad.


It's not the camera, but the poses.  The poses are intended to be provocative.  Provocative can be interpreted in more than one way.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 2, 2017)

Designer said:


> It's not the camera, but the poses.  The poses are intended to be provocative.  Provocative can be interpreted in more than one way.



_I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that._
_......................................................................................_United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart 1964


----------



## Granddad (Jul 2, 2017)

You paid £20 to access the beach so that makes it sound like a private beach. If that's the case the lifeguard_ may_ have had the authority of the owner(s). That makes it awkward, you probably did right to leave without a fuss. Assuming you weren't going beyond the line of decency I agree the lifeguard was an a**hole but the world has lots of a**holes with uniforms who love to goose step all over common sense. 

Maybe next time look for a beach that's not private, isn't frequented by families and has no lifeguard/Nazi storm trooper on duty? 
At least you got some good shots while you were there.

P.S. There's a beach not far from me that would be perfect, I did a nude shoot there several years ago and there was no one in sight. Unfortunately it's probably about 6000+  kilometres too far away.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 2, 2017)

Granddad said:


> You paid £20 to access the beach so that makes it sound like a private beach..........



Even public property may charge day-use fees.


----------



## Granddad (Jul 2, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Even public property may charge day-use fees.



True, especially so over on your side of the pond. But in my experience if there are charges that usually means there are rangers or lifeguards and rules and regulations that can be vague and nitpicky but enforceable in court. In those circumstances lifeguards may have authority and telling them to "Foxtrot Oscar" can have legal penalties that could end in a record... In my opinion not worth it.


----------



## Donde (Jul 2, 2017)

The photos you posted appear to be completely innocent. So what was it that inspired the lifeguard to ask you to leave the property?


----------



## FITBMX (Jul 2, 2017)

Beautiful work! 
You should have "accidently" set your flash off in her eyes, on high, set to a narrow beams! 
This is just sad that so many people have such body hang ups. I am sorry you had to deal with this scum bag. 
We should all go leave them a bad Yelp review!


----------



## Designer (Jul 2, 2017)

Donde said:


> The photos you posted appear to be completely innocent.


LOL!


----------



## DanOstergren (Jul 2, 2017)

Donde said:


> The photos you posted appear to be completely innocent. So what was it that inspired the lifeguard to ask you to leave the property?


Agreed. Completely clothed, no crotch or breast groping, nothing is exposed besides arms and legs, and while the posing is a little bit provocative, it's nothing that would come anywhere close to being traumatic or inappropriate for kids. Sounds like the lifeguard was a major prude and on a power trip.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 2, 2017)

While I agree that the work is well done and hardly erotic, I would submit that doing a shoot like this on a public beach isn't really appropriate, if for no other reason than you're likely to have a bunch of looky-loos getting in the way.  First and foremost, @cauzimme, did you have permission to shoot there?  Had you determined whether or not permission and/or permits were required?  It may have been a public beach, but if there's a life guard there, someone's paying his/her salary, and they probably have rules about what goes on at the beach.  Further, while it's easy to castigate the prudish life guard, how do you know that he would not have acted in the same manner had you or your friend simply been languishing around the beach in the same manner without a camera?  It's also possible, likely even, that one or more members of the public complained, and he was simply doing his job.  To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, the needs desires of the many outweigh the needs desires of the few.  

I agree it's unfortunate that you couldn't finish your shoot, but it's also important to remember that being a photographer does not give one rights over others, and just because you wanted to shoot in that location at that time, does not mean that you should be able to.


----------



## FITBMX (Jul 2, 2017)

tirediron said:


> While I agree that the work is well done and hardly erotic, I would submit that doing a shoot like this on a public beach isn't really appropriate, if for no other reason than you're likely to have a bunch of looky-loos getting in the way.  First and foremost, @cauzimme, did you have permission to shoot there?  Had you determined whether or not permission and/or permits were required?  It may have been a public beach, but if there's a life guard there, someone's paying his/her salary, and they probably have rules about what goes on at the beach.  Further, while it's easy to castigate the prudish life guard, how do you know that he would not have acted in the same manner had you or your friend simply been languishing around the beach in the same manner without a camera?  It's also possible, likely even, that one or more members of the public complained, and he was simply doing his job.  To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, the needs desires of the many outweigh the needs desires of the few.
> 
> I agree it's unfortunate that you couldn't finish your shoot, but it's also important to remember that being a photographer does not give one rights over others, and just because you wanted to shoot in that location at that time, does not mean that you should be able to.



You are right, there is a very high chance that some prude parent thought this was going to turn every child there into a sex maniac, and complained to the prude lifeguard. When 99% of the people there could have probably not given a dang about the photo shot! The lifeguard definitely should have let this go once the shoot went to yoga poses.
But you know how it is, the jerks of the world have the biggest mouths!!!


----------



## FITBMX (Jul 2, 2017)

tirediron said:


> To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, the needs desires of the many outweigh the needs desires of the few


 "“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” Captain Kirk answers, “Or the one.”


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 2, 2017)

FITBMX said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, the needs desires of the many outweigh the needs desires of the few
> ...



Actually, it's Spock that both starts and finishes it.

Spock: "It is logical the needs of the many outweigh......"
Kirk: ".... the needs of the few."
Spock: "Or the one."


----------



## FITBMX (Jul 2, 2017)

480sparky said:


> FITBMX said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



That's what I thought, then I looked it up to make sure I had it right, and they had it the other way. So I figured I was wrong, and I needed to watch the movie again!


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 2, 2017)

FITBMX said:


> .......... So I figured I was wrong, and I needed to watch the movie again!


----------



## PhotoPro1 (Jul 3, 2017)

I think the person was objecting to the girls behavior. Young girls these days have a tendency to go overboard, which is inappropriate in front of young children. If you would just promise to calm the girls down I am guessing they would not object.


----------



## FITBMX (Jul 3, 2017)

PhotoPro1 said:


> I think the person was objecting to the girls behavior. Young girls these days have a tendency to go overboard, which is inappropriate in front of young children. If you would just promise to calm the girls down I am guessing they would not object.



They did and still got kicked out.


----------



## chuasam (Jul 3, 2017)

Things like these make me glad that I live in a Free Country. Just be thankful that the new Republic of Gilead did not make you completely cover up.


----------



## Jamesaz (Jul 4, 2017)

Some years ago I stumbled across a guy doing a shoot on a SoCal beach with a topless model. My concern was for the Hasselblad. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## cauzimme (Jul 5, 2017)

Granddad said:


> You paid £20 to access the beach so that makes it sound like a private beach. If that's the case the lifeguard_ may_ have had the authority of the owner(s). That makes it awkward, you probably did right to leave without a fuss. Assuming you weren't going beyond the line of decency I agree the lifeguard was an a**hole but the world has lots of a**holes with uniforms who love to goose step all over common sense.
> 
> Maybe next time look for a beach that's not private, isn't frequented by families and has no lifeguard/Nazi storm trooper on duty?
> At least you got some good shots while you were there.
> ...



It was the beach of the municipality



tirediron said:


> While I agree that the work is well done and hardly erotic, I would submit that doing a shoot like this on a public beach isn't really appropriate, if for no other reason than you're likely to have a bunch of looky-loos getting in the way.  First and foremost, @cauzimme, did you have permission to shoot there?  Had you determined whether or not permission and/or permits were required?  It may have been a public beach, but if there's a life guard there, someone's paying his/her salary, and they probably have rules about what goes on at the beach.  Further, while it's easy to castigate the prudish life guard, how do you know that he would not have acted in the same manner had you or your friend simply been languishing around the beach in the same manner without a camera?  It's also possible, likely even, that one or more members of the public complained, and he was simply doing his job.  To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, the needs desires of the many outweigh the needs desires of the few.
> 
> I agree it's unfortunate that you couldn't finish your shoot, but it's also important to remember that being a photographer does not give one rights over others, and just because you wanted to shoot in that location at that time, does not mean that you should be able to.



Yes the location permits photoshoot and video, I called before, I wouldn't have planned a photoshoot otherwise, we went during the weekday, at 11 -noon so it would have less people, it was actually a cold and windy day, so when we arrived, there was only 3 people, reading books, fully covered. At noon, children arrived, but were on the extremity far from us, in the daycamp section. And 2 others photographer/videographer arrived, one was doing family images, the other one, filming a Yoga video.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 5, 2017)

well, you cant play frisbee on CA beaches... so...


----------



## ShutterVan (Jul 11, 2017)

I believe I would have asked for a refund...and I would have requested a refund and clarification as to the rules you were violating that resulted in your expulsion/request to leave.  I feel quite certain that the lifeguard was able to act as an owner/agent of the property and you did the correct thing by leaving.  I would go back to management and file a complaint as it appears that you did not violate any common sense rules.  Request a refund...what can it hurt.  It can bring to light the inferiority complex of the lifeguard and/or those that may have complained to the lifeguard.  Great photos by the way.


----------



## BrentC (Jul 12, 2017)

And this was in Montreal?  I'm surprised then, not know for being prudish there.  Great photos.   Love to see more of your model, something about red hair and freckles.


----------

