Photography Quadcopters now getting unfair press

[old.user4556]

Good lord.

http://petapixel.com/2014/06/09/woman-violently-attacks-photographer-beach-using-quadcopter/

Was going to post it in the random spam thread, but as someone who's had a run in with the law for taking pictures of concrete walls and other highly sensitive subjects (trees, and *gasp* the exterior of shopping centres) I was rather shocked by the above.

Beware quad users, the paranoid brigade are out to get you.

 

[Tom]

I think quadcopter pilots have more pressing issues, especially if they're using the device to get footage. They're now required to be licensed, which is a bit of a shame. I fancied buying one of the little Phantom copters, sticking a GoPro on it, and getting some nice flyovers of the entire length of our local canal. But now, I can't do that unless I'm licensed - and that's just too much hassle.

 

[DaGaffer]

While this woman is clearly a complete looney, there are still a ton of issues to be ironed out when it comes to UAVs and privacy. While you may fly a quadcopter from a public place, that doesn't mean the camera isn't looking into private property etc. (in fact in places like the UK its almost inevitable), and the potential for abuse by Paps etc. is absolutely massive. Unfortunately, as devices get smaller and smaller, the ability of UAVs to get pretty much anywhere is going to become trivially easy, and in the long run we'll probably end up just living with it as an other piece of privacy gone by the wayside, and all buy thicker curtains.

 

[Raven]

Air to air combat inc!

 

[soze]

I know a farmer who legitimately uses one of these to check the drainage ditches along his property line. He had the police round (legitimately?) as a neighbor complained when she was getting a bit of naked sunbathing done and this thing just flew over with its cameras all over it.

The police asked to view the footage to see that he was not recording his neighbors back gardens and then just left it at that. He has since send a letter to all his neighbors with a copy of one of its filming runs saying it never records out side of his property line.

 

[caLLous]

What if it did though? I mean I'm all for photographers' rights but I don't think it's unreasonable to be perturbed by one of these flying along a beach where there are going to be scantily clad folks around (especially... *gulp*... children). That woman was obviously a cunt of the highest order but I would expect to be challenged if I was walking around a populated beach with a DSLR. I don't have experience with quadcopters but I would imagine that, from the ground, it's mighty difficult to see where its camera is pointing when it's 50 odd metres up in the air.

 

[DaGaffer]

What if it did though? I mean I'm all for photographers' rights but I don't think it's unreasonable to be perturbed by one of these flying along a beach where there are going to be scantily clad folks around (especially... *gulp*... children). That woman was obviously a cunt of the highest order but I would expect to be challenged if I was walking around a populated beach with a DSLR. I don't have experience with quadcopters but I would imagine that, from the ground, it's mighty difficult to see where its camera is pointing when it's 50 odd metres up in the air.

Would you?

 

[old.user4556]

I see your point, it could be quite invasive to be lying on the beach only for a remote control camera to go zipping overhead. However, I always come back with the same challenge - everyone is equipped with a camera in modern life, even on beaches that are full of kids. I'm more bothered by sly photos by the person next to me with a smartphone than a quadcopter which is most likely equipped with a wide angle GoPro which won't reveal fine details such as a mons pubis from 60 feet up.

 

[caLLous]

Would you?

Would I expect to be challenged, would I walk around a populated beach with a DSLR or would I challenge somebody who was walking around a populated beach with a DSLR?

Yes, probably not and meh I don't know I guess it would depend on the individual situation but probably not.

 

[DaGaffer]

I see your point, it could be quite invasive to be lying on the beach only for a remote control camera to go zipping overhead. However, I always come back with the same challenge - everyone is equipped with a camera in modern life, even on beaches that are full of kids. I'm more bothered by sly photos by the person next to me with a smartphone than a quadcopter which is most likely equipped with a wide angle GoPro which won't reveal fine details such as a mons pubis from 60 feet up.

...and on the beach, on public property, I'd agree with you. That's not the problem with UAVs though, and their cameras will only get better.

 

[DaGaffer]

Would I expect to be challenged, would I walk around a populated beach with a DSLR or would I challenge somebody who was walking around a populated beach with a DSLR?

Yes, probably not and meh I don't know I guess it would depend on the individual situation but probably not.

The beach is a public place...

 

[caLLous]

Of course it is but there are certain places where, if you saw somebody wandering around taking pictures, eyebrows would be raised, and a heavily populated beach has to be one of those places. Doesn't it? :\

 

[DaGaffer]

Of course it is but there are certain places where, if you saw somebody wandering around taking pictures, eyebrows would be raised, and a heavily populated beach has to be one of those places. Doesn't it? :\

Not as far as I'm concerned. I have an expectation that anything you do in a public place can (and probably will) be photographed or filmed, and if you have a problem with that, don't do whatever it is you're doing. I think if you have an expectation of privacy in public spaces in this day an age you're just in denial, its completely impossible to police.

 

[megadave]

The footage from the article makes people look like ants, he was flying at over 50feet, you can't see any sort of detail on a gopro from that distance.

 

[TdC]

frankly I would never expect to be challenged when walking in a public place with a DSLR taking random pics.

I would, if I were focussing directly on people on a beach or when clearly in their private property, but tbh that is fairly visible and immediately apparent with most consumer (and pro) lenses. You need absolutely stupendous lenses to be able to stand off miles and get *any* kind of detail. http://petapixel.com/2012/04/23/nikkor-1200-1700mm-the-mother-of-all-super-telephoto-nikon-lenses/

 

[caLLous]

You need absolutely stupendous lenses to be able to stand off miles and get *any* kind of detail. http://petapixel.com/2012/04/23/nikkor-1200-1700mm-the-mother-of-all-super-telephoto-nikon-lenses/

Noob.

 

[Job]

Better get used to it..they can make flying objects the size of dragonflys now with hd cameras onboard..you will never be unseen soon

 

[caLLous]

frankly I would never expect to be challenged when walking in a public place with a DSLR taking random pics.

And to be honest, I wouldn't expect to be challenged either in France. America or England, I'm not so sure but I think us mainland yerpers are more relaxed about all that jazz. In fact you should see some of the stuff they do at fetes and things involving preteen girls (and boys iirc) and some sort of beauty pageant thing... it made for... uncomfortable viewing (I've only been to one) but there were people there happily snapping away and nobody was batting an eyelid.

 

[soze]

I think in my back garden and I see one flying around with a camera on it I am going to be pissed off. On a public beach the hidden cameras are more of a problem. The only concern I would have with a beach would be safety the wrong person flying one and I imagine it might hurt when it lands on you. So if they ban you flying RC Helicopters like on a beach near me I would expect the Quad to be banned as well.

The guy I know with one got told by the police that his might be illegal soon, he can set GPS Spots and send it on its way and it will go to A>B>C>D>E then back to base. The only reason he follows it is to watch the video live. He could have it run his ditches without having to get involved.

 

[leggy]

I read something recently about the banning of UAVs/Quads at Yellowstone National Park and I think the question posed was:

Would any of you be happy to have a tonne of buzzing copters flying about your usually undisturbed place of natural beauty? I wouldn't and that's why I think they should be restricted to some degree. As a lover of the outdoors, this actually worries me more than someone taking sneaky pics of my awesome boobs.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Everything gets a bad press, everything is "bad for you", everything needs to be regulated. But luckily democrazy means freedom!

 

[Embattle]

When freedoms collide.

 

[Bigmac]

I hope the bitch gets the book thrown at her.

 

[old.Tohtori]

@caLLous what do you want? It's not like anyone is going to disagree that the woman is a moron.

 

[fettoken]

Either she's strong or he was really weak. Well, he'd get arrested if he'd do anything back, or just defend himself.

 

[Raven]

I'd probably arrest him for being a bit of a tampon too.

 

[caLLous]

Well on the one hand (literally) he was trying to capture the whole thing on his phone. On the other hand he was probably of that "don't hit a girl that's hitting me" line of thinking or there were people around and he knew it would strengthen his case (especially as he was filming it all) to be completely passive.