In that case, the issue seems to be how you present your opinions on this matter. From your initial posts, it very much sounds as if you’d have a problem with anyone on the beach taking pictures of any kind. Obviously, that would make you some kind of nutter. I’m glad to hear you’re not a nutter.
No, not for taking pictures.
keep settin em up, I’ll keep knockin em down.
There’s a local photographer whose latest exhibit consists entirely of people who didn’t want to be photographed and who are using their hands to block view of their face or otherwise twisting to protect their privacy. I disagree that it’s very unlikely.
Snowboarder, on the one hand it’s difficult to believe that anyone takes your viewpoint seriously, that mere adherence to law makes you a decent human being. On the other hand, this is the Dope, famous for such bizarre views–and it sheds light on your continuing Quarry nonsense, so there’s that.
I suppose your real point is that there are people like you out in the world, and thanks for making that point.
If your local photographer is making money off the shots you describe, it is quite possible that he is actually breaking the law, for there are specific laws regarding the commercial (non-newsgathering) aspect of photography.
If we were to sit down and compare notes you would likely discover we mostly agree on the idea of how to be courteous when taking photographs and videos; one should consider the feelings and preferences of the potential subjects of a photograph.
I agree that in the several examples given, of walking right up to someone and taking their photograph without permission, you are discourteous and are likely to cause a negative reaction.
What I am taking a stand against is the advocacy of violence against anyone over taking a legal photograph. And I also suggest that the chances you will run into someone with an inflated idea of right and wrong, and their willingness to assault you over their mistaken beliefs, is far greater than the chances that you are actually doing something wrong.
In the OP we have a kid playing with a camera drone, and he is attacked by a woman who believes she is within her rights to attack him for his perceived transgressions. I believe (and have backed up with cites) that he has a right to do what he was doing; that he was not engaged in activity that should have provoked a reaction; and I believe that if you provoke a reaction when engaged in lawful and reasonable activity you should not have to fear assault.
Yes I just added the and reasonable caveat, because I think that is where all the argument lies. Each of us has in their mind a concept of what and reasonable is, and we’re all bringing it to the table. If we all compared noted I think we all have a pretty similar idea of what reasonable is.
I’m just arguing against the ‘he got what he deserved’ crowd because I contend the chances someone will be assaulted for the wrong reasons far exceed the chances that they might actually, in any reasonable person’s definition, ‘deserved it’.
I’m almost certain we would. Scumpup and Snowboarder deserve each other, but the rest of us deserve neither of their extreme positions.
- It’s possible to take a legal photograph in a way that’s incredibly rude and obnoxious, just as it’s possible to sing a legal song in a way that’s incredibly rude and obnoxious. And some jerks do it.
- Responding to the rude photograph or the rude song with violence is a sin worse than the song or photograph. And some jerks do it.
- The kid in the OP does not appear to have taken a rude or obnoxious photograph. The woman in the OP does appear to have responded in a totally terrible way, and should go to jail.
All the above look right to you?
I concur with these statements.
Thanks!
There’s generally an exception for fine art, too. No model release required, but it’s an area that can get fuzzy. At any rate, if they’re really covering their faces, that might make the model release stuff moot, anyway
And I agree with the final summary of points made by LHoD
I don’t see what’s so great about the photo. I can’t even make out what it’s supposed to say.
Doubtful. Especially if it was a first offense, probation and, perhaps, a fine is more likely. You’ll always have the memory of how it felt the moment you realized that your rights were not going to save you, though.
I imagine a lot of you would have a big problem with the way photographer Bruce Gilden operates (and honestly, I do too.)
“Eat popcorn, drink coca-cola,” of course.
–Shrug-- Makes me want to buy a slingshot. Not for a beach. Agree 100% that I’ve zero right to privacy in public.
In my own yard? Bring on that pricey copter with the $ 400.oo GoPro Hero 3. I sling it out of the sky, onto my property, hey tough shit pal.
I never said that.
Ah, if only you made as much sense as you think you do. Alas, you do not.
“People like me”? What is that supposed to mean?
I feel sorry for you.
It’s a race thing.
So show me the daylight between your claim and my paraphrase, if you think there’s any.
People who think that they satisfy the " the baseline standard of being a decent human being" by doing “what is legal,” that’s who.
Left Hand of Dorkness, what are you trying to do here?
Submit that there’s a major difference between what the law requires, and what basic decency requires. Is that truly confusing? Snowboarder has suggested there’s no such difference, that as long as a photographer is following the law, he’s under no ethical obligation to respect people’s privacy to any greater degree. I submit that a photographer who waltzes up to that line in disregard for other folks’ desires is a jerk.
I submit that you are being needlessly argumentative and willfully misunderstanding a simple point. He isn’t saying what you are accusing him of.
Don’t. I’m not the one who goes about believing that my legal rights will prevent an angry, possibly irrational, person from shoving a camera up my ass. If you haven’t read “Lord of the Flies,” you really ought to do so. You do a swell impression of Piggy whining about having the conch.