Drones have the potential to force restrictions on public place photography

[uhoh7]

Interesting twist on the usual "photographer's rights" thread 🙂

Those nasty drones, they will ruin it for all of us......😉

As usual there is heavy sense of entitlement by US photographers who can sound like the gun enthusiasts. The rights in the US are the exception, not the rule, and their ethics are certainly debatable, especially, as the inventor of CMOS recently pointed out, with the advance of facial recognition software, which can scour the internet for individuals and place them in all sorts of places and situations in a way that was never envisioned when our rights became established here in the USA.

Obviously, just like the next photographer, I don't want anyone ever telling me to stop taking pictures. Anywhere LOL

But I might not be so enthusiastic if somebody was stalking me under such a cloak, on the ground or in the sky 🙂

 

[robert blu]

Probably it's all legal, but...

If I'm walking along a street and a photographer, a tourist or a "street photographer" take a photo of the place and I'm in that picture I feel ok.

But if in the same place he comes at half a meter from my face and takes that picture because using an extreme wide angle lens he think to make a masterpiece for which he'll receive many "like" on FB or whatever the minimum I can say he disturbs, bothers, annoys me even if he has the right to do it.

If a photographer flies his drone and takes a general photo, an aerial landscape of a street and the building where I live is in the photo I feel ok.

But if he flies his drone a couple of meters from the window of my floor and takes picture of it maybe when I open the windows to have some fresh air the minimum I can say he disturbs, bothers, annoys me even if he has the right to do it. Even if it is legal and he has the right to do it.

Unfortunately in today's world the prevalent idea is that if I can do it I will do it, it's not important if my action disturbs anyone else.

Personally I would never make for my own pleasure actions which will disturb anyone else, but I feel to be in the minority...

I think it's a question of respect...

robert

 

[Keith]

Drones and Gopros. I'm sick of the sight of Gopros everywhere and I now see that Amazon are predicting they'll be delivering packages via drones in around six months.

The Gopros I can't do much about but as for the drones .... a shotgun should take care of a few of those! Yeehaw! 😀

 

[__jc]

irresponsible use of camera drones (e.g. camera-equipped drones hovering over bikini-clad women on the beach)

According to Dictionary.com, one definition of a drone is: "a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer".

So, paparazzi. They've been doing this for years!

 

[David Hughes]

Since the Govt. (and their contractors) can and probably do look into what's on our hard drives and phones whilst we are sleeping I can't see that - relatively speaking - it matters. I'm also read they can switch/modify software in smart phones etc so that the microphone stays on and the camera is monitored without us realising.

Regards, David

 

[Jack Conrad]

Speaking of photography restrictions, might it become litigious to take photos
of your own cameras to sell online?

http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-polic...os-of-that-classic-designer-chair-you-bought/

 

[hepcat]

Probably it's all legal, but...

I think it's a question of respect...

robert

Robert, of course you're right... and there certainly seems to be little respect for anyone else in our world. On the other hand, at least in the U.S. there seems to be a wave of "entitlement" thinking among the populace... that they are somehow entitled to not be offended. The US Constitution guarantees the right to be able to offend... but does NOT grant a right to not be offended. It's amazing how many of my fellow citizens don't grasp that idea or how important it really is.

Since the Govt. (and their contractors) can and probably do look into what's on our hard drives and phones whilst we are sleeping I can't see that - relatively speaking - it matters. I'm also read they can switch/modify software in smart phones etc so that the microphone stays on and the camera is monitored without us realising.

Regards, David

David, George Orwell's dystopian version of 1984 has finally arrived... and in typical government fashion, it's a mess... and about forty years behind the projected completion date... and hugely over-budget. 😀 And you're absolutely right... traffic cameras, pedestrian cameras, cameras at every ATM, cameras in every elevator and building lobby and hallway... there's not many places one can go in a big city now without having their every move monitored by someone, somewhere without their knowledge and/or consent. Drones are just a visible intrusion that folks can object to because they can see them. They're no different than corporate or government cameras though.

 

[Jack Conrad]

"Your freedoms end where my feelings begin" 😱

 

[Jack Conrad]

I am more fussed about safety than invasion of privacy.

For invasion of privacy, look here http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...e/news-story/c3eaaeb6318d7f01dcb4394da968340a

“I heard a noise and then I saw this odd thing flying around and thought it was a kid’s toy. It hovered around and luckily I was face down at the time,” Ms Lingard said.

Lucky for who, the viewer? I'd call either side of the coin bad luck. 😱

 

[willie_901]

I don't see that there is a difference in a drone outside your window and a person peeping. One of the regs involve registering and having a number one the craft so I would think that a quick photo of the drone outside your window and the number on it would get the owner a peeping tom violation. ??

A person peeping is illegal because it is a violation of citizens' rights' to privacy. A drone would be no different.

Different states and localities have different definitions of what is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Holding a camera over a tall fence to photograph someone in their backyard is a violation. It is reasonable to expect privacy on your property when surrounded by a 7 foot fence. Photographing someone standing in front of a window on the street side of a one-story home is not a violation. It is not reasonable (from a legal standpoint) to expect privacy from public view when you stand in front of an open window that faces public property.

So, in a city living in a tall building surrounded by other tall buildings you have no expectation of privacy if you leave your windows uncovered. If you are in a small city and live in the tallest building well above were others could see you when your window is open, a drone would violate your right to privacy.

 

[willie_901]

I didn't know Australia used the US Constitution. 🙂

Privacy laws are different all over the world, and Americans often don't realize how local theirs are. For example, you could take a picture of a nude in the Englischer Garten in Munich, but - without release - you couldn't post it on Facebook.

Found a neighbor's drone once in our back yard. No big deal, I returned it to him, before my dogs ate it.

Roland.

Yes, my response was parochial. Mea culpa.

 

[gb hill]

Here's how I think the law should be about shooting a drone in the airspace of your property. If the drone is flying within the boundary of the tallest tree, or building on your property & you don't live in a city limit which prevents firing a gun, then you should have the right to shoot it down because the person flying the drone has no right flying it within your property to begin with.

 

[willie_901]

...
As usual there is heavy sense of entitlement by US photographers who can sound like the gun enthusiasts.
...

This is an insightful comparison.

It falls apart a bit when you realize practically all private business owners and corporations are participating in candid photography of private public spaces but are not issuing firearms to every employee (with gun shops and shooting ranges being some notable exceptions).

 

[willie_901]

Since the Govt. (and their contractors) can and probably do look into what's on our hard drives and phones whilst we are sleeping I can't see that - relatively speaking - it matters. I'm also read they can switch/modify software in smart phones etc so that the microphone stays on and the camera is monitored without us realising.

Regards, David

It doesn't matter when governments respect the freedoms of all law-abiding citizens.

Otherwise... well history is replete with government directed religious and ethnic persecution.

 

[willie_901]

Since when did respect have anything to do with legality?

 

[hepcat]

So, in a city living in a tall building surrounded by other tall buildings you have no expectation of privacy if you leave your windows uncovered. If you are in a small city and live in the tallest building well above were others could see you when your window is open, a drone would violate your right to privacy.

While you're spot-on with most of your post, this particular part isn't exactly correct. It's not so much about the size of the building; it's whether the viewer (or drone operator) has a right to be standing (or flying) where THEY are that governs whether or not a subject's "privacy" is being violated.

Your example of a person standing on the public sidewalk looking into the front windows of a house is correct. The sidewalk in front of a house, and the sidewalk running to the steps, the steps and a front porch are all considered places open to the public. That's how I get to ring your doorbell to see i you're home. Looking in your front windows while I'm on your front porch is not violating your privacy if you haven't drawn the drapes. You have a lower expectation of privacy if you choose to open your drapes or blinds. If I am lawfully in a house next door, and I look out the window of THAT house into a side window of yours, that's perfectly lawful. If I have to go into your yard, into a place not open to the public to look in your window, though, then I'm guilty of being a "peeping tom." it's the same with your tallest building in town example. If I set a telescope up in the public park and photograph your window from the ground, that's perfectly legal. If I need to use the window-washer's scaffolding to look in, however, I may in fact be violating your privacy.

This is a fairly straight-forward set of laws in the US anyway, and are important for more than photographer's rights. They govern the legality of obtaining probable cause for search warrants, warrant-less searches, and a number of other issues under 4th Amendment search and seizure law. As I worked in law enforcement for thirty years, I have a fairly solid working understanding of the subject.

 

[Tim Murphy]

Congrats Peter!

Congrats Peter!

I equal 'drones' with 'jet skis' both contraptions of great fun to the owner and of great inconvenience to all others. Ban them.

Dear Peter,

+1 You've described my sentiments to a "T". When I am outside I don't expect to bothered by some tools latest effort at self pleasuring.

What you do inside your home is your business. If you do something in my space where ever my space is at the time it is now my business and you may not like the result.

Just because the ability exists to do something doesn't mean that it needs to be done. I wish that people would learn that, or at least revert to what they taught and behave like decent people instead of self-indulgent idiots all the time.

I know I'm pissing in the wind with that but I've wet myself in the past and I'll do it again. 😀

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[uhoh7]

Here's how I think the law should be about shooting a drone in the airspace of your property. If the drone is flying within the boundary of the tallest tree, or building on your property & you don't live in a city limit which prevents firing a gun, then you should have the right to shoot it down because the person flying the drone has no right flying it within your property to begin with.

Anyone stupid enough to shoot at a drone should go to jail. Where will the bullet fall?

Unlike the drone, it is sure to crash somewhere, and far more likely to cause serious injury if it hits somebody.

 

[Tim Murphy]

Anyone stupid enough to shoot at a drone should go to jail. Where will the bullet fall?

Unlike the drone, it is sure to crash somewhere, and far more likely to cause serious injury if it hits somebody.

Dear uhoh,

A decent .22 caliber pellet rifle will drop a drone with no muss and no fuss and no one standing 25 feet away will ever know the round was fired.

Just like photography is best done with the best equipment one can muster so to is shooting.

Why wouldn't the falling drone be the responsibility of the drone owner?

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂

 

[x-ray]

How many of you have had encounters with drones and what happened if you did? How many of you have even seen a drone in flight?