Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
I'm with you there JoePa...bang bang bang....reload...bang bang bang...LMAO
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoePa
I'm with you there JoePa...bang bang bang....reload...bang bang bang...LMAO
JBen did you not say that we have no right to our own image? What is the difference between driving around taking people pictures from a car or boat and from the air? Nobody owns the air but if you shoot down a drone you will soon find out who owns it, when the cops show up and YOU are charged. No I do not have one.
There was a guy in the USA who shot one down in his backyard and got into some trouble. Posted the follow up here because it gives a sense of the confusion on the issue when it comes to privacy. Cheers
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...-than-alleged/
In most cases the owner of a property does not have the mineral rights and a company can be digging gold or diamonds 100 feet under their house and there is no claim to compensation, claim to water rights to water adjacent their property too generally doesn't exist in Canada, so the same can probably be said of air rights too. Like a picture taken of a scene or landmark if the drone is high enough or has enough other things in the picture (like the google street view) the owner will likely have no claim and be accountable for any damage to a drone even if it is over his property. The real estate man taking pictures of the buildings and area had every right to do so for example and the guy at the police station or the guy that shot the one down in Kentucky are just out of luck and to paranoid or stupid to realize it.
It isn't just above and below the property too, I know a person who has a cottage up on the Bruce Peninsula and with the changing water levels the lawyers are making a mint on who owns what, public access rights etc. He said he has told them he wants nothing to do with it and was laughing that even though the property lines are defined the idiot beside the public access area is making a claim to property outside them and with the lower water levels people are using the public access and the area he considers his. Apparently some people use the bushes behind his house as a toilet so he has a good reason to complain but if the county just put up a porta potty at the end of the road it would take care of that issue but instead both sides are blowing tens of thousands on lawyers which I was told the fight had been on for over 5 years. Common sense isn't something that common anymore, sort of like the Liberals, spend $1B to study a $1M project. :-)
"Pretty much" G. It's more complex than that, but that's the gist of it. The roots of that are copyright law. The moment I push the button, I own the rights to that image for 50 years plus 1 day after my death.Quote:
Originally Posted by fishermccann
There are some laws with respect to what can/can't be taken. If I'm on private property I can be asked to stop. Many areas are doing that these days for security reasons. However if I'm 6 inches outside the property line I am within my rights. And the law protects me, the police can't ask me to delete the images or try to take them. Accost me, and it's "you" getting charged.
I always ask people if I can take images, many don't. To each their own.
Now, as a photographer, while I can take any images I want. I can run into hot water depending on how I use them.
Look at this way.
If your in your tin can, pitching docks for LM, and a cottage owner puts a deer slug into your tin can...whose in trouble???
That said, personally I see the needs for some crack downs. Largely aimed at limiting the pure hobbyist, thrill seekers. They are the ones that typically don't care about other people...these units can seriously hurt people, and yes invade privacy.......airspace and put planes at risk and more.
If you can stand outside my property lines and take pictures of my kids in our backyard pool, is that not the same as flying a drone over the backyard , 20 yards in the air for the same pics? Not arguing, just looking for some clarity as to where those blurred lines are.
No blurred line there, it "is" the same.
Difference being, if Im in a tree taking pics of your kids in your pool. You can see me, maybe somewhat politely ask me what the hell Im doing. If your kids are at the beach and I have my camera trained on smoking hot 15 yr old daughter………you could ask me what the hell Im doing…Maybe call the cops (they can't do much) but there'd be a report and radar checks to see if Im a registered offender and….
If Im half a click away and using a drone….or using it to fly by your daughters bedroom at midnight, or many other things….
So the difference is the ability to confront, who is taking your picture?
I don't know if confront is the term Id use but yes, that's one of them…speaking as a photographer and as a drone owner. I can literally if I want take an image of you anywhere. I don't need your permission. The exception to that is private property, and the property owner can just as they can say "no motorized vehicles"…say "no pictures". Since 911 many public spaces, but private property are doing just that.
I can display them on my website, Facebook, whatever. If though I sell the image, or the rights to it or use it for promotional purposes, without your permission, I can land in hot water. Now all that said, I don't. I ask and even when people are ok with me taking an image, if they aren't ok with it being on my site or FB…It doesn't end up there. But quite seriously if someone ever did come after me…It wouldn't go well for them, and they would be the ones in legal hot water.
*****
There was an incident, not quite sure but lets say 6-8 years ago, where a staff photographer for one of the papers was taking pictures of people at the Eaton Centre corner of Yonge/Dundas. He (or she) took an image of a Muslim. That person and her friends assaulted the photographer, (religious belief against images) and slapped him..Guess who got into trouble.
Basically think about what celebrities endure. I'm betting many here, who seem "riled" love the shots of female celebrities wearing next to nothing on beaches. In their pools....
Politicians say like Rob Ford I know many here were thrilled and titalated by all the images of him, drunk, embarrassing himself, smoking crack, driving, eating KFC……or sports players or a gazillion things.
Drones though are ripe for abuse and imo, their usage should be cracked down on.
What do think of those who would shoot your expensive pieces of equipment from the sky, because you are invading their privacy?