Ahhhh, Google Translate…
“You are being performed here.”
…at least they would have been delighted by the earnest effort! ;)
A better translation would be simply おしまい (literally ‘finished’ with an implied ‘you are’) although やめなさい (‘stop’) would be more direct.
So, you admit that some recordings can be impolite, even if not illegal.
But I didn’t, except in your own way of interpreting my words.
But yeah, filming anybody, no matter who, without their permission IS impolite, and there’s nothing crazy about thinking that. There is plenty of crazy in thinking otherwise. No backpedalling in this.
But most cameras, even the ones on helicopters CAN zoom in. Just because your friend didn’t use the zoom, that doesn’t mean that somebody in a copter can’t take close up shots of people. And he should be ready to address that if confronted.
Oh, he used a very long telephoto to get that shot. You can zoom in on the original file and get pretty damned good details of the people. The resolution is much higher and the picture is much cleaner (due to the expensive optics and much better stabilized image) than from the video from a quadcopter (although these have gotten quite good.) And no worries about confrontation, unless you want to chase down a helicopter.
If you’re on a public beach, you don’t have any reasonable expectation of privacy. Now, if you’re nude sunbathing in your backyard with a privacy fence, and a quadcopter comes by to film you, I can having a problem with that. On a public beach? Not so much.
What, I wonder, would be the legal position of a beachgoer, who, upon discovering himself (or herself) being subjected to unwanted aerial surveillance, launched his or her own quadcopter on a suicide mission to dogfight the offending craft out of the sky?
ETA: Then again, I come from a photojournalism background in the US, where people in public spaces are generally fair game, as long as you are not using their likenesses commercially, but for editorial purposes. And, if I’m confronted, I just state my purpose. This woman just decided this kid was a “pervert” and it doesn’t look like she was ready for any reasonable explanation.
Ummm, not to answer for Sr Siete, but there’s a small part of me quivering in the corner right now, saying “YES! IN FACT, LET’S JUST MAKE THAT OUR STARTING POINT!”
shudder
Probably not very good. How is that different from breaking someone’s camera who is legally taking photos of you? “Unwanted aerial surveillance” is legally the equivalent of a kid in the back seat of a car complaining “Mom, he’s *looking *at me!” Until the law changes I’m not sure what people are expecting.
I may not have a legal expectation of privacy (although I assume that varies from place to place), but I do expect a modicum of common courtesy, as in not having my picture taken without my permission. Even for purely innocent reasons.
I don’t see how that’s such a weird concept.
Let’s try to avoid calling other posters names outside of the Pit.
What’s considered legal doctrine covering a situation where you launch a kite and its tail cuts the string of another kite?
Or, if you launch a quadcopter to harrass another quadcopter with a series of near-collisions?
It’s weird because it’s just how you feel, despite you not having ever lived anywhere where what you desire was in fact the legal or social custom.
Where did I say anything about charges filed/not filed against the lady? Please, read again. Thanks!
If its legal for the kid to take pictures of people on a beach w/o their consent, then of course, jail isn’t an option. Photographic advances and drone advances far outpace the law, however,
so it might be time to enact curbs on what is public space allowable for photography.
Invasion of privacy/stalking are crimes by you, aren’t they? Just checking. There seems to be a difference between legitimate purpose photography like art, news, family, public entertainment (with signed releases) and illegitimate purposes such as stalking, surveillance and felony level harassment. Violence may not be the answer, but until there is a way to get police cruisers to a scene faster to charge the goons who are used to just walking away quickly and getting away with it, I’m at a loss as to the proper response.
Would you make the same argument for the guy who had a cam in the tops of his shoes and was sticking his feet under women’s dresses? How about the guy who lays the camera down on the seat of the subway to shoot some up-skirt shots of women on their way to work? These people didn’t dress that way to parade down a cat-walk; they went to enjoy the feel of the sun and perhaps a tan. There was no posted sign warning them that paparazzi are going to take pictures of them possibly to use against them at work or on social media. They were given no warning … no chance to consent… or to opt-out.
(bolding mine)
If I was sitting in the back of a court room, I’d expect to hear the same argument in defense of that guy taking pictures up women’s dresses on the subway in the summertime. That this was reported on PINAC is no surprise;
they seem in-your-face lunatic fringe on photographer’s rights.
**“Permission or lack thereof is totally irrelevant.” **
I want the reader to roll that phrase around in their mouth a little bit. Does it taste good? How hard would it be to hear that re-phrased and coming out of a goon’s mouth as,
“I’m going to take your picture. Right Now. I don’t care if you want me to do it or not. I’m going to take your picture. And I’m going to use it however I see fit because its Mine and I Own it.
On your Facebook? On your LinkedIn? To your Boss? To your Clients? To that person you wanted to ask out? To your elderly mother? Maybe I’ll post it on Craigslist as selling sex or on NAMBLA as seeking child porn.
Whatever I’m in the mood for today… and I may change my mind tomorrow. I’m going to take your picture. And there’s not a Single Damn Thing You Can Do About It.”
If you hear it that way, or if photography is handled that way, how can you blame Alec Baldwin?
If I ever had a single doubt about the laws to protect people from paparazzi Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner were fighting to pass in CA, they are gone now. I only regret that those very small limits are at a state level only and not in my state.
I look forward to the day when the law is changed… when strict paparazzi curbs and limits are enacted in all 50 states, or perhaps even at the federal level; laws with sharp enough teeth that even the goons will sit up and take notice.
I do think that not liking people taking pictures of you without permission is quite the standard everywhere. The fact that you claim to be unbothered by the concept is what surprises me.
I mean, a guy starts taking pictures of you in a public space and you would be fine with it? Really?
I’m not interpreting your words with some arcane tome or a funhouse mirror; I’m repeating them. Your only qualifiers are absolutes: nothing, anybody, should not.
So (pretty much) every news camera ever has been impolite? How about the people who took those beach photos I linked to? Impolite as hell, huh? :roll eyes:
You give consent by being in public.
And yeah, I’m fine with my picture being taken in public. So are you. So is everyone. Which is why this is so stupid to try and be upset at having your picture taken in public. IF YOU GO OUT IN PUBLIC YOU ARE BEING RECORDED. And tracked via your cel phone.
Look, it seems that nearly every freaking business has a video security system now; they are so cheap that any store can get a great 24/7 system for less than $1000. Landlords and homeowners are installing them for a few hundred dollars per property. Traffic lights have cameras on them. Many municipalities have camera systems on various parts of downtown or busy intersections. Did you pump gas? You got filmed. Did you go thru the Dimmu Burger drive-thru? You got filmed. Did you use an ATM? You got filmed. And they can do whatever the hell they want with it as long as they don’t do anything illegal; why wouldn’t they be able to?
Lots of unfounded outrage here, ISTM. Can anyone articulate any reason at all to be upset that doesn’t involves some fantasy of illegality that is somehow entangled with the image recording?
If we are talking about news cameras and pictures published in the internet then it actually does become a legal matter whether you have the permission of the person or not, it goes beyond politeness.
Again, would you be fine with a guy following you around the street, taking pictures of you? Just answer that.
The big difference is when you are specifically targeted. It’s not that hard to understand.
The point being missed is it is unusual for total strangers to take photos of other strangers. In my experience people do exactly the opposite. For example I want a picture of the Lincoln Memorial. I would wait until there was a clear shot without people in the way. Thats not always possible. Sometimes you have strangers in the photo. Someone up thread mentioned a similar situation. Sometimes crowds just don’t allow an unobstructed shot.
It would be quite confusing if I were targeted by someone with a camera. My first instinct would be to step out of his shot. So he could get a shot of what ever he was aiming at. I would be quite upset if the camera stayed on me. My last name sure as hell isn’t Kardashian. Theres no legitimate reason someone wants my photo.
A situation becomes quite threatening. when people do weird stuff to me. I will not react favorably to that kind of threat to myself or my family. I’d be very surprised if most people don’t react the same way.
