Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Woman Attacks Photographer For Using His Drone.  (Read 2172 times)
Kevin Gallagher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



WWW
« on: June 09, 2014, 09:00:22 AM »
ReplyReply

 Gotta love this one, it took place at a State Park in Madison CT. As the video says, the woman didn't know she was being taped and wound up being arrested herself. There is a bit of cursing in the video. Surprisingly I don't recall reading about this in any of our local newspapers.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=57e_1402206030

 
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6051


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2014, 10:14:05 AM »
ReplyReply

As much as I am against the concept of hate crime, as long as it exists, I would like to see attacks on photographers treated as such.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2014, 01:50:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh I don't know, there is a certain class of paparazzi who have it coming...
Logged

amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 09, 2014, 02:22:38 PM »
ReplyReply

This isn't necessarily criminal, but it is social, which can be much weightier.

Like it or not, we still feel old superstitions when we're photographed. We pretend that we don't believe in the harm taking our image does. We pretend that the camera does not steal our soul. But we believe it.

Take pictures of strangers kids some time, in public place. Photographing with a drone feels more intrusive, more of a violation. Why? Is it worse to have ones soul taken by a robot?
Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6051


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 09, 2014, 04:28:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh I don't know, there is a certain class of paparazzi who have it coming...

Do not blame paparazzi... it is our seemingly insatiable demand for details of celebrity life that creates them. They, like vultures, simply serve a purpose in the natural or social food chain.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
iluvmycam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2014, 05:36:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Carry OC spray. Cone or stream works best. At night, a tactical flashlight also is a good first warning. If they don't stop from being lit up...spray em.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8208



WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2014, 08:04:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting to see the amount of people who still seem to think that physical violence is a credible approach to solve issues.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: June 09, 2014, 08:09:15 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1099


« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2014, 09:08:20 PM »
ReplyReply

This isn't necessarily criminal, but it is social, which can be much weightier.

Like it or not, we still feel old superstitions when we're photographed. We pretend that we don't believe in the harm taking our image does. We pretend that the camera does not steal our soul. But we believe it.

Take pictures of strangers kids some time, in public place. Photographing with a drone feels more intrusive, more of a violation. Why? Is it worse to have ones soul taken by a robot?

I don't think this was about superstition, I think it was about people feeling technology is used against them. The woman is a freak, I am not condoning her attack. If I try to wonder what set her off, it is probably feeling she is at a disadvantage when people use Tech against her.

I avoid doing "street" photography for exactly that reason, I would create a social situation where the subjects are at a disadvantage.

Human lives are very interesting subjects. Several times I have been out doing photography where a powerful emotional scene unfolds. They would be great shots, I just can't bring myself to take it at what may be a vulnerable time for the subject. For example, when I was a (business) student in Cambridge, MA, I was out doing architectural shots of Boston. There was a scene I came across of this older guy looking absolutely devastated, looking up at one of the big financial buildings. I felt crushed just looking at his face about 1/2 a block down the street. Did he lose it all? He did not look like a fired banker, he looked like a retiring blue collar guy that had his life savings wiped out. There I was with a 200mm in hand. I could not bring myself to take the shot. It seemed invasive. I will never forget his face.
Logged
ahbnyc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2014, 10:26:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I certainly don't condone physically attacking photographers (or other people for that matter) but I do think there is something kind of wrong (ethically, but probably not legally) about photographing people without their knowledge or consent, especially where their emotions (or what might look like their emotional state) are being depicted.  Of course, I have often enjoyed looking at street photography, so call me a hypocrite.
Logged
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433


WWW
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2014, 03:45:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting to see the amount of people who still seem to think that physical violence is a credible approach to solve issues.

Cheers,
Bernard

And how can this be squared with the fact that a notional monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is the very basis of every State?

Meanwhile there are numerous regions where the least thing one has to fear from the presence of a drone is being photographed by it.
The photographer Trevor Paglen has done some interetsing work in this area.
http://www.dazeddigital.com/artsandculture/article/16183/1/art-in-the-drone-age
Roy
Logged
amolitor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 803


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2014, 04:32:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Objections to being photographed are, mostly, rooted in superstition.

I don't much like being photographed by strangers, and I would be infuriated by a done. But it's still superstition.

To see this, just keep unpacking. You say perhaps, 'no, it's because people feel violated' then all yourself 'but why? Where is the violation?' and so on. With a few exceptions, there is no rational reason at the bottom of it all.

« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 04:36:04 AM by amolitor » Logged

- Andrew

My awesome blog about photography: http://photothunk.blogspot.com
Kevin Gallagher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2014, 04:40:33 AM »
ReplyReply

  Well it seems that the local media has finally picked up on this story. This is from The Hartford Courant.

  http://www.courant.com/community/madison/hc-hammonasset-beach-drone-attack-0610-20140609,0,32950.story

 And This From Channel 8 News.

  http://wtnh.com/2014/06/09/woman-charged-with-assault-over-drone-flight/
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 04:43:20 AM by Kevin Gallagher » Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3767


« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2014, 05:08:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting to see the amount of people who still seem to think that physical violence is a credible approach to solve issues.

Hi Bernhard,

It is, and has always been, an expression of impotence, the (perceived or factual) inability of controlling the outcome of events, and one's destiny.

BTW the drone photography issue is largely a privacy issue, a subject that is culturally interpreted diversely. Public space is not an argument, because it is still an invasion of privacy, only more loosely regulated. That's why Google Street-View blurs faces and license plates.

The relationship between citizens and governments is regulated e.g. by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and e.g. images taken by private persons may (in fact they do, via Facebook and the like) wind up in the hands of governments and other private organizations (e.g. insurance companies).

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: June 10, 2014, 05:45:53 AM by BartvanderWolf » Logged
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5791



WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 11, 2014, 01:13:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't agree with physical attacks, but in Canada at least... last year(?) a photographer in Quebec was charged for making a picture of a girl sitting on some steps without first asking permission. This doesn't fall under copyright but privacy laws. It's a little fuzzy, but if one makes a photograph of a monument for example and there happens to be a person there then there's no privacy violation, but if one shoots an image of a person and there happens to be a building or something behind that person then that's an invasion of privacy. It's a question of the main subject in the image. Use of image doesn't matter; the violation comes with clicking the shutter.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8208



WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 11, 2014, 06:27:35 PM »
ReplyReply

And how can this be squared with the fact that a notional monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is the very basis of every State?

Totally right, state promoted use of agression as a means to solve issues is at the very core of the debate. Note that I am not debating the need to have the means to defend oneself.

Every use of violence has long term consequences, generates hatred and retaliation, provides comfortable justifications for the use of more violence.

This is the dark side of the force Star wars was talking about. Wink

The movie "bowling for Colombine" did a great job at showing how state promoted violence, embodied by the weapon lobbies, connects back to the personal level violence, distilling ideas and spreading confusion in the mind of people.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad