That beach picture… WOW !!!
But none the less, you can’t pay me to go or drag me there.
That is so not a place I want to be.
First things first, That camera is incapable of optical zoom. The quadrocopter would be unable to take off with a camera that big.
Second, Digital zoom sucks balls, the only thing it does is make tiny pixels into big pixels.
Walking along the beach with your phone taking unzoomed video would be about a billion times the resolution of that quads camera because you would be able to get within a few feet of people.
Third, and this is an honest not intended to be a dick question at all. How do you get through the day? you are caught on camera every single time you go damn near anywhere in this country. I cannot imagine the energy it must take to be that concerned about what other people are doing with all that footage of you.
He’s done well for himself, although not from that single photograph in particular (although I’m sure he made a reasonable amount of money with it). His most famous aerial is probably this one, though (I have a print of it in my dining room), which he shot while he was on staff at the New York Times. He does moving pictures mostly, these days. Commercial work for Nike and that sort of thing.
That’s because that’s not my position at all. And if you bother actually reading my posts you can read me pointing that out several times. On the contrary, my position is that I don’t believe in an extreme* “either everything is allowed or nothing is”* concept.
There is a level of scrutiny that you, and me, are happy to allow, which includes cameras in the streets. There is a level that actually crosses the line and becomes obtrusive, even, I assume, for you, like, for instance, somebody following you around with a camera for months.
Personally I am far more concerned with what the government/corporate interests are doing far more than some random person filming in public. People who follow you around for months are called either stalkers or paparazzi depending on your celebrity status.
I don’t know if you are just talking past everyone or what but you seem to have taken a fairly extreme view of people with cameras in public places in this thread. It’s a bit hard for me to understand esp since I often (sort of) film in public places. I cannot recall it ever being an issue.
The kid in this story didn’t photograph anyone in particular, didn’t follow the woman around, may not have photographed her at all (at least before she assaulted him), didn’t brandish a knife, didn’t zoom in on anyone’s crotch, didn’t leer at their children, etc.
Okay, the beach shot made me go “Wow!” but that pic there left me speechless for a couple of seconds; that shot is art.
I don’t feel that’s very extreme. When you are observing something, even without a camera, you are creating interaction. People will act differently if they notice you filming them. That’s unavoidable.
Of course I’m not claiming that neither me nor most normal people would attack you for it, but it’s disingenuous to think that the reaction should be absolute indifference. In certain public spaces and situations you may even be creating a certain level of discomfort, so you probably don’t act like you are moving unnoticed, and avoid doing things like focusing for too long on a given subject and so on.
I fly multicopters and planes for aerial photography as a hobby, I have yet to find a person that objects to it, even when flying on the beach. In fact more often than not people that see there’s a camera up there wave and even strike a pose.
I am yet another who has filmed and photographed at the beach, been filmed and photographed at the beach, and not run into any weirdos voicing their discontent, verbally or battery-ly.
I understand what you are & have been saying.
I do not understand that you can know with that much certainty what I or many others must feel because you have it, hang with people or have a belief system that is like you.
If you are not native to the USA or have not been here long or are from a culture that has different mores, well OK. But you are in the USA and not only that you are on the SDMB which is not a fair cross section of Americana.
You are using a soft rubber bat on a big tree trying to make it into some other kind of tree with no logic, tolerance or willingness to believe that they could actually feel, think, dress, undress with totally different ideas & view points.
I have to remind myself sometimes of who I am trying to communicate with. You seem to be not trying at all.
You seem to me to be trying to not address this particular incident but are trying to change peoples view point about how & why and what they should be thinking according to you or your culture, or religion.
Could be wrong but your constant reusing the same words, same arguments about different situations, the constant re drawing of the line with, “But what if it goes to here, if it goes to here, yah but if it is this way instead. Shirley you jest, that makes no sense.”
This is not discussing, it is proselytizing …
Holy fuck is he still here? I thought I made it clear that seeing his posts bothered me and he did say that he would stop posting rather than bother me, yet he’s still here, still posting. WTF??? 
So my (prolly poorly expressed) point is that not all personal lines are reasonable; it’s one of the reasons we discuss and modify things so there is a consensus on where lines are acceptably drawn.
What disturbed me is that she called the cops, then assaulted the kid and still thought they would take her side. I have seen other people do that kind of thing and never got their logic.
I do indeed use the same words… but that’s only because the argument I make is twisted every time into something that is not, so I have to keep on clarifying it over and over.
My argument is quite simple: there is such a thing as personal space, even in public places. And that there is a difference between being seen and being stared at. And I’ve had to explain that exact argument several times because it’s easier to caricaturize my posture as me being against any kind of photography.
But you are right in that using things like the “surely you jest” adds nothing to the argument and is needlessly confrontational.
Because I know that depriving you of my wonderful self would be the worst thing I could do to you. And I couldn’t have this weight in my conscience.
And my point is that some personal lines are, and that includes photography or video recording in certain specific situations.
Dateline: October 21, 2015
Man Suffers Massive Injury at Local Hotel
In a scene straight out of a horror movie, a man only identified as “Senor S” was the victim of an as of yet unexplained injury at a local Marriot. It appears that the man accidentally walked into conference room C, where a convention of Google Glass enthusiasts was being held. Google Glass is a wearable device that uses a head mounted display to give wearers many of the capabilities of smart phones such as social media and video recording. “It was the strangest thing I ever saw.”, said one of the participants at the convention, “This man walks in the door and says ‘excuse me, is this room B?’. We all turn to look at him and his head just explodes. Like Galagher smashing a watermelon”
As of the time of the publication of this article, there are 873 videos of the incident on YouTube.
Okay, wow. Interesting stuff.
In the US there is clear cut law on photography in public. A simple summery is as follows: Photography is *always *fair game except: private property, certain government property, and locations of inherently expected privacy.
For private property this includes homes and many business. In some states businesses that inherently invite the public on their property (such as malls) cannot prevent photography on their premises.
Certain government property is usually military bases and nuclear plants.
Areas of expected privacy include inside your own home (behind closed curtains!), underneath your skirt, in a public bathroom, etc.
In fact may of the situations that those who cry worst case scenario are already illegal!
For those who might wish to delineate the nature of personal, or amateur photography vrs news photography I suggest that much of the defining news photography gathered is done by private individuals who happen to be on location of a breaking news event and capture it. So much *history *is captured by private photographers.
Also the act of taking photographs and video is critical for the public to keep government misbehavior in check, for example police or elected officials. Indeed the first people who attempt to prevent photography are those who are engaged in activities that they do not want recorded or shared. That is a good indicator that something is going on that is detrimental to the public good.
Here are three excellent tutorials of the rights and responsibilities of public photography: ACLU, Lifehacker and my favorite, Andrew Kantor.
Photography merely captures a record of a visual event that has occurred, and was already visible for everyone to see. For every person who cries at the thought that their actions or images might be recorded, I have to wonder what it is that makes them so upset that it would be recorded in the first place?
And the answer to that is the abuse of said rights: the paparazzi, the stalkers and so on.