I’m not surprised Murderface would film people at the Dimmu Burger…
I have to be in public to go to work and to get home. I have to be in public to shop for food or clothes. I have to do those things just to live and I don’t give my consent to be photographed.
If anyone Thinks they have my consent, let me state now and in writing that I Revoke it.
Tough. There isn’t much you can do about it.
Around $900, plus the phone.
When I was a teen, some hobbyists put cameras in their r/c airplanes. In the early-'80s, I was thinking about how to put a super-8 camera in one. R/C helicopters were coming out around that time, and I thought it would be neat to put a super-8 camera on one. Never did because of the cost, but r/c helicopters with cameras did eventually become a reality and have been used in filmmaking. When I was a child and into my teens, Estes offered the Camroc rocket that had a 110 camera in its nose. They also had the Cineroc rocket with 8mm camera.
Thank you for your honest answer.
THIS, ladies & gentleman, is why the law needs to change.
My only gripe is: Where’s my cut?
A movie crew takes (not real number) 150,000 still photos of Schwarzenegger, assembles them into one long strip, calls it a movie, he gets $20,000,000.*
A local photog takes my pic, sells it to the local paper, gets (again, not real number) $500, where’s my take?
I know the answer: Arnold has a better agent then I do. 
*I know with digital photography that’s not the case any more.
So what do you do when you want to go to McDonald’s, 7-11, Walmart, the local mall, etc.? Do you call ahead and ask the manager to turn off the security cameras?
If not, why not? Or does the common courtesy of explicitly asking your permission before recording your image not apply to such places?
Where did I say that you did say that? Try reading my post again - or even a first time.
You clearly said in your post that the kid should serve time in jail. Do you still believe that?
Man, the stupid is knee-deep in this thread but this here deserves a special trophy.
Charlie Wayne, please cite laws in any American state that says children under the age of 13 can’t be charged with a crime. You may also cite any law which states that children under the age of 13 are exempt from its rquirements.
A woman’s underwear is NOT knowingly put on public display unless she’s deliberately lifting up her skirt. There’s a mighty big difference there–one that you seem unable to understand.
You accept their terms of doing business or you go somewhere else, and good luck with that.
Courtesy is not a legal concept.
As noted upthread, you don’t have a choice; traffic cams, shop surviellence, personal alarm systems on houses, ATMs, and about a dozen other sources have taken your pic without, and no requirement for, your consent. Welcome Little Brother, you are being observed.
The worst part of it isn’t even the public domain but online where, thanks to lawyerly obfuscation and people’s tendency to not read things that are hard, they have handed over the rights to their personal image to the likes of Facebook and Google, who can pretty much do as they please with your image.
First, you insult me. Then, you expect me to cite laws and do other things for you?
You are wrong to imply anyone is stupid. But thanks for the laugh.
Here’s a repost, word for word, as a reply to my post.
Did you mean to address me only re: the jail aspect? The sentences run close together and you only changed paragraphs when you referred to the drone. Did you mean to separate your thoughts on her punishment from your reply to my post?
Changing paragraphs where you did implies that your entire first paragraph is a reply to my post. You’re welcome.
Its been made clear that under the given laws in CT, no laws were broken so no, I don’t believe that. Your statement is that he did nothing wrong, and I disagree with that because its my opinion that going to the beach just to take pictures of people in their bathing suits without their consent is wrong.
(…and if anyone thinks I’m White Knighting for the ladies, EFF 'em, because I don’t want MY picture taken.)
Given your rules, if her dress is above the knee and she’s sitting down, her underwear could be visible in a subway car. Your POV puts all blame on the person being photographed & requires Zero responsibility for the photographer.
I don’t agree with your POV.
Your POV I understood easily, but it boils down to an unprovable “He-said-She said” about intent and style of clothing, which makes it worthless and I’ll never agree with it.
The difference still is that a quadcopter from the 7-11 doesn’t follow me around after I’m done doing my business in their property. And I would indeed find that a bummer if it did. I don’t think that’s abnormal or contradictory.
Perhaps you missed the recent story of the two twelve year old girls charged as adultswith stabbing. Your statement is false.
Just watched the video, I’m curious - if he responded to the assault by throat punching her and she died, should we be okay with that?
If I saw someone doing that to my kid…there is no way it would continue for that long. The only reason it did was because this kid had patience and the woman was a bully.
The quadcopter in this incident wasn’t following anyone around, as can be seen in the aerial footage.
See, I don’t have that expectation.
No, but if the concept here is that he can fly that quadcopter anywhere and nobody has a right to complain, that also includes his right to follow people around unchallenged.
And your belief that he went “to the beach just to take pictures of people in their bathing suits without their consent” is based on what evidence, exactly?