Grab my gear and run. Those kinds of confrontations can be really scary. I love street photography but it is probably better not done alone. I have to admit droning over a beach does seem a little sleazy, almost like shooting through a window at someone undressing. He was within the law but what exactly was he planning to do with the photos?
I watched the video and read his blog. Good thing he videotaped the assault.What I find most interesting is that the police did not just tell her on the phone that taking photographs in a public place is not a crime .Then she would not have felt as free as she did to attack this guy for a perceived crime.I am too chicken for any real street photography but I value and appreciate the work of street photographers.
Wow, that's intense. I'm glad he was able to record the assault. I for one don't see the harm in using a drone for photography because hey! aerial photos, how cool is that? I don't know what I would do in this situation because someone like this lady doesn't have the ability to be reasonable. I do like street photography and will take photos of people and will then often start a conversation with them after the photo is taken. I haven't had a problem yet.
Well, I wouldn't be the photographer because I am too chicken to risk a confrontation like this. Not the he didn't have the right to take the photos, in a public place, but most photos to me aren't worth the confrontation. There are some crazy folks out there.
Wonder what she was doing that she was so keen not to have recorded?
I'm not sure if the photography aspect of it would upset me as much as trying to have a peaceful day at the beach spoiled by buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ etc
@adambralston "they found a drone outside their window photographing them while they were in their own house. That kind of privacy invasion shouldn't be allowed."
You're right, it shouldn't be, but a public beach is not a private place, is it?
I suspect that there is going to be a movement against those helicopter cameras because they are capable of being abused, but that doesn't mean that someone has the right to attack a person for using them in a way that is within the law. And as far as the clothing goes, if she is embarrassed about the modesty of what she is wearing, then why is she wearing it on a public beach?
@adambralston I think there are two different issues here. Filming through a window of a residence vs. filming a coastline at the beach. Everyone has a right to expect privacy in and on their property and you are correct, that type of photography shouldn't be allowed and as far as I know it's not legal. There is no expectation of privacy in a public area, so I don't see the harm in it. I viewed the film from the drone and it was so far up that you couldn't make out any features of people, it was more in nature of landscape photography. The only difference in what he was doing and what street photographers do was his images were being taken from the air, while a street photographer's images are at ground level. In that respect, a street photographer's images are more invasive than this particular persons drone photography.
I do a ton of street photography however there are two subjects that I simply will not take. I will not photography children without the permission of their parents, and I will not under any circumstances photograph a beach if there are people swimming. The risk is simply too great. People are way to paranoid today when it comes to kids, and I'm simply not willing to risk either myself or my equipment in taking either of those types of photos.
"one doesn't expect to have a camera aimed at their nether regions either out of decency."
So where have we seen or been told that he was aiming at her nether regions? Seems to me you are jumping a bit to conclusions here.
"Just don't support voyeurism like that personally."
Voyeurism is defined as " the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors," I think you are jumping pretty far and using an unwarrantedly prejudicial term to describe someone taking pictures, with a relatively noisy apparatus, at a public beach. Pictures which we have no evidence were of anyone's nether regions.
@adambralston I'm not angry, just stating my feelings about this too.
There are quite a few people in life who cause me some annoyance by their behavior. Frankly people who take their loud music players to the beach and blast music, not to my liking, annoy the heck out of me, as do people who decide to start a pick up frisbee game, five feet from where I have stretched out on the sand, and proceed to kick sand around and put me in fear of being trampled. Heck, I'd generally prefer a totally people free beach to take photos of but I realize that, if I am on a public beach, I don't have a lot of right to restrict other people from enjoying it in the way they like best. Nor do I have the right to attack or assault them for their choice of leisure pursuit as long as their activities are not illegal.
I think photographers have as much right to enjoy their leisure activity of choice as anyone else and I think the assumption that the person taking photos of the shoreline is up to some nefarious or perverted activity is unfounded.
Funny, in a way, that I come out so strongly on this because I wouldn't do it myself because I'd prefer to avoid the confrontation and generally try to avoid doing things that piss people off but that doesn't mean that I think someone who does chose to take photos on a beach is a legitimate target for attack.
@gardencat@adambralston Here it is.... just 4 minutes of pretty scenery . http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R5HrpGB2s
This guy was not only doing nothing illegal,but nothing "wrong."
And the assault footage is horrible.It would be like me jumping up and beating up the guy with the radio.Because I am with you @gardencat about blasting music.lol!
in my opinion, its ok to use drones , in every public place, BUT..... that guy shoud have a "permit to shoot " to do it on the beach....
as a filmaker , when we have to shoot it on a public place - we ask for a permit to do it in a certain place . aerial, land or underwater, public or private .....
heres my drone/s shot, when doing a TVC, in a public place....
@gavincci So are you suggesting a permit to fly a drone? or a permit to film in a public place?
I'm wondering which of those two activities you feel should need to be permitted .
@gavincci
Okay, so it is the filming itself that you feel should require a permit, not the use of a drone camera?
So if I go out on the beach, with a little Fujifilm X , point and shot, and take some videos of my kids playing in the surf, should I need to get a permit before I do that?
I certainly understand the need to get a permit if you are filming something that involves a lot of disruption to the immediate area or denies other people the use of public property while you do your filming, closing down streets for instance, or blocking off a section of the beach from public use, so that you can shoot your film without the intrusion of passers by.
But if pulling out a personal camera (or even a cell phone) to record a video requires a permit, then there are going to be a whole heck of a lot of people in contravention of the law.
From what I saw, this guy was not denying anyone access to the beach or anything else, maybe the noise of his drone was annoying to some people but no more so than many other activities people engage in on the beach, IMO.
So if I go out on the beach, with a little Fujifilm X , point and shot, and take some videos of my kids playing in the surf, should I need to get a permit before I do that?
- NO! , DRONE IS A DIFF FROM YOUR "LITTLE" FUJIFILM X ...
But if pulling out a "personal camera" (or even a cell phone) to record a video requires a permit, then there are going to be a whole heck of a lot of people in contravention of the law.
- AGAIN - NO!, - DRONE IS DIFF FROM YOUR PERSONAL CAMERA !
maybe the noise of his drone was annoying to some people.
-EXACTLY!!!
--------
lets not be too pedantic about the situation .
the main topic here is how the guy was confronted by the girl, no matter what the situation is... legal or not legal ..... the confrontation should ended in civil way ......
I'm sorry if i seem to be beating a dead horse here but I think this is an interesting discussion and one that is of importance to anyone involved in doing any kind of street photography. And by "street photography" I guess I mean any photography in a public place.
You state that : "DRONE IS A DIFF FROM YOUR "LITTLE" FUJIFILM X "
but why?
They are both capable of recording the scene and if you start differentiating by type of camera where do you draw the line?
You say that you don't want to be "overly pedantic' about the situation but to me that is exactly what you are doing by trying to make trivial distinctions between his drone, and my point and shoot, and someone's cell phone etc.
As far as the noise being annoying to some people well, as I pointed out before, there are a lot of annoying things people do on the beach, loud music, loud talking or swearing etc. but no one is suggesting that people be required to get a permit to bring their MP3 player and speakers to the beach.
I think most people here have agreed that the assault was unacceptable but I am interested in the apparent difference of opinion between those who think the assault was unacceptable but that he kind of asked for it by behaving in a "wrong" way and those that feel that he was doing nothing wrong and that the attack was totally without any justification.
As some one who takes my camera just about everywhere with me and often sees scenes that I'd like to shoot, in public places, this is a discussion that is of great interest to me.
First, I think I would be unlikely to be in that position because, as I've stated above, I often don't take pictures I would like to take, and that I think I am within my rights to take, because I am not prepared to face the wrath of an out of line nut ( like the woman in the video).
In the same way, there are certain places that I wouldn't walk alone, late at night, because I would be afraid of being the victim of a crime. That does not mean that being alone in those places makes it okay for someone to assault me. And I would take offense to the suggestion that by being in one of those places I was somehow "in the wrong". Foolhardy maybe, but not doing anything wrong.
Second, if I were somehow to attract the attention of a crazed, camera hating nut, I think I would scream for help and probably fight back harder than he appears to be in the video. Since I am a, not very large, older, woman I think I would be less likely to be mistaken for the aggressor should the police arrive and the nutcase accuse me of assaulting her, than a young man would be in the same situation.
Lastly, that "lady" as you refer to her is, in my book, no 'lady'.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Wonder what she was doing that she was so keen not to have recorded?
You're right, it shouldn't be, but a public beach is not a private place, is it?
I suspect that there is going to be a movement against those helicopter cameras because they are capable of being abused, but that doesn't mean that someone has the right to attack a person for using them in a way that is within the law. And as far as the clothing goes, if she is embarrassed about the modesty of what she is wearing, then why is she wearing it on a public beach?
"one doesn't expect to have a camera aimed at their nether regions either out of decency."
So where have we seen or been told that he was aiming at her nether regions? Seems to me you are jumping a bit to conclusions here.
"Just don't support voyeurism like that personally."
Voyeurism is defined as " the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors," I think you are jumping pretty far and using an unwarrantedly prejudicial term to describe someone taking pictures, with a relatively noisy apparatus, at a public beach. Pictures which we have no evidence were of anyone's nether regions.
There are quite a few people in life who cause me some annoyance by their behavior. Frankly people who take their loud music players to the beach and blast music, not to my liking, annoy the heck out of me, as do people who decide to start a pick up frisbee game, five feet from where I have stretched out on the sand, and proceed to kick sand around and put me in fear of being trampled. Heck, I'd generally prefer a totally people free beach to take photos of but I realize that, if I am on a public beach, I don't have a lot of right to restrict other people from enjoying it in the way they like best. Nor do I have the right to attack or assault them for their choice of leisure pursuit as long as their activities are not illegal.
I think photographers have as much right to enjoy their leisure activity of choice as anyone else and I think the assumption that the person taking photos of the shoreline is up to some nefarious or perverted activity is unfounded.
Funny, in a way, that I come out so strongly on this because I wouldn't do it myself because I'd prefer to avoid the confrontation and generally try to avoid doing things that piss people off but that doesn't mean that I think someone who does chose to take photos on a beach is a legitimate target for attack.
This guy was not only doing nothing illegal,but nothing "wrong."
And the assault footage is horrible.It would be like me jumping up and beating up the guy with the radio.Because I am with you @gardencat about blasting music.lol!
@grizzlysghost hahahaha will help you find that place, lets burn her first ,,, LOL
@mzzhope thanks for the link dear....
@brianarmoured - agree better done not alone.....
------------------------------------------------------------------
in my opinion, its ok to use drones , in every public place, BUT..... that guy shoud have a "permit to shoot " to do it on the beach....
as a filmaker , when we have to shoot it on a public place - we ask for a permit to do it in a certain place . aerial, land or underwater, public or private .....
heres my drone/s shot, when doing a TVC, in a public place....
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10201914689922470&saved
-nothing harm happened
I'm wondering which of those two activities you feel should need to be permitted .
Okay, so it is the filming itself that you feel should require a permit, not the use of a drone camera?
So if I go out on the beach, with a little Fujifilm X , point and shot, and take some videos of my kids playing in the surf, should I need to get a permit before I do that?
I certainly understand the need to get a permit if you are filming something that involves a lot of disruption to the immediate area or denies other people the use of public property while you do your filming, closing down streets for instance, or blocking off a section of the beach from public use, so that you can shoot your film without the intrusion of passers by.
But if pulling out a personal camera (or even a cell phone) to record a video requires a permit, then there are going to be a whole heck of a lot of people in contravention of the law.
From what I saw, this guy was not denying anyone access to the beach or anything else, maybe the noise of his drone was annoying to some people but no more so than many other activities people engage in on the beach, IMO.
- NO! , DRONE IS A DIFF FROM YOUR "LITTLE" FUJIFILM X ...
But if pulling out a "personal camera" (or even a cell phone) to record a video requires a permit, then there are going to be a whole heck of a lot of people in contravention of the law.
- AGAIN - NO!, - DRONE IS DIFF FROM YOUR PERSONAL CAMERA !
maybe the noise of his drone was annoying to some people.
-EXACTLY!!!
--------
lets not be too pedantic about the situation .
the main topic here is how the guy was confronted by the girl, no matter what the situation is... legal or not legal ..... the confrontation should ended in civil way ......
@gardencat
You state that : "DRONE IS A DIFF FROM YOUR "LITTLE" FUJIFILM X "
but why?
They are both capable of recording the scene and if you start differentiating by type of camera where do you draw the line?
You say that you don't want to be "overly pedantic' about the situation but to me that is exactly what you are doing by trying to make trivial distinctions between his drone, and my point and shoot, and someone's cell phone etc.
As far as the noise being annoying to some people well, as I pointed out before, there are a lot of annoying things people do on the beach, loud music, loud talking or swearing etc. but no one is suggesting that people be required to get a permit to bring their MP3 player and speakers to the beach.
I think most people here have agreed that the assault was unacceptable but I am interested in the apparent difference of opinion between those who think the assault was unacceptable but that he kind of asked for it by behaving in a "wrong" way and those that feel that he was doing nothing wrong and that the attack was totally without any justification.
As some one who takes my camera just about everywhere with me and often sees scenes that I'd like to shoot, in public places, this is a discussion that is of great interest to me.
First, I think I would be unlikely to be in that position because, as I've stated above, I often don't take pictures I would like to take, and that I think I am within my rights to take, because I am not prepared to face the wrath of an out of line nut ( like the woman in the video).
In the same way, there are certain places that I wouldn't walk alone, late at night, because I would be afraid of being the victim of a crime. That does not mean that being alone in those places makes it okay for someone to assault me. And I would take offense to the suggestion that by being in one of those places I was somehow "in the wrong". Foolhardy maybe, but not doing anything wrong.
Second, if I were somehow to attract the attention of a crazed, camera hating nut, I think I would scream for help and probably fight back harder than he appears to be in the video. Since I am a, not very large, older, woman I think I would be less likely to be mistaken for the aggressor should the police arrive and the nutcase accuse me of assaulting her, than a young man would be in the same situation.
Lastly, that "lady" as you refer to her is, in my book, no 'lady'.