Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Click Orlando)   Local 6 in Orlando finds a drone with a GoPro cam containing 2 hours of video - part of which shows woman sunbathing   ( clickorlando.com) divider line
    More: Florida, GoPro, Altamonte Springs  
•       •       •

13489 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:43 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



313 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-25 04:10:09 PM  

firefly212: Waldo Pepper: firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.

when I go to the beach I feel everything is free to shoot but not everything is free to post online.  A lot of what photographers are shooting is just learning their craft, also candid street photography is a well known and accepted art f ...


No.  It's not necessarily 'private' but it is most certainly not for public consumption.  No way.
 
2013-06-25 04:11:33 PM  
firefly212:

IDGAF if you take a picture of me having fun mountain climbing and fap to it.. it doesn't in any way take away from ...

You're right, but the line gets drawn where?  Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?
 
2013-06-25 04:11:47 PM  

MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.


That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.


That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.
 
2013-06-25 04:12:40 PM  
HOW ABOUT YOU DON'T TAKE PICS OF PEOPLE IN PUBLIC SPACES AND RESPECT OTHERS' PRIVACY.
 
2013-06-25 04:13:33 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.

That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.

That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.


yOU'RE NOT CLEVER, AND YOU'RE NOT MAKING AN INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT.
 
2013-06-25 04:14:57 PM  

MNguy: You're right, but the line gets drawn where? Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?


Yes, as long as the fapping doesn't take place in public (though that has nothing to do with privacy laws). Don't like that? Talk to your local lawmakers and get the laws changed. But don't come here and say that it's illegal to do something just because you think it should be, especially when it so easily proven that you're wrong.
 
2013-06-25 04:15:40 PM  
CAPS LOCK DOESN'T CHANGE LAWS.
 
2013-06-25 04:15:53 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.

That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.

That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.


You are full of derp, and you can scroll all you want.  You are defending child pornography, do you get that?
 
2013-06-25 04:16:32 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're right, but the line gets drawn where? Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?

Yes, as long as the fapping doesn't take place in public (though that has nothing to do with privacy laws). Don't like that? Talk to your local lawmakers and get the laws changed. But don't come here and say that it's illegal to do something just because you think it should be, especially when it so easily proven that you're wrong.


What did I say that was wrong?
 
2013-06-25 04:16:38 PM  

DirkTheDaring: Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

If that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.


It's not exactly true. What you guys are talking about are "publicity rights" which are a tricky area that has a lot of caselaw behind it. There's no standard nationwide as far as what constitutes publicity rights, and there's also first amendment questions which enter into the analysis. A quick example: I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach, then frame it and hang it in my photography gallery - I'm probably fine. I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach and use it in an ad for whatever beach-related crap I'm hawking - I'm probably violating her publicity rights by falsely implying she's endorsing my product.

In other words, people have a (property) right to their own image, but I also have a copyright to art I create capturing that image. There's a balance between the two that's pretty complicated. And it's also how EA gets away with putting college kids and old athletes in its games without paying them, like when Jim Brown sued them over using a black running back wearing #32 on the All-Browns historic team in Madden and lost.
 
2013-06-25 04:17:13 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: CAPS LOCK DOESN'T CHANGE LAWS.


That was my bad, CAPS LOCK
 
2013-06-25 04:18:36 PM  

phyrkrakr: DirkTheDaring: Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

If that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.

It's not exactly true. What you guys are talking about are "publicity rights" which are a tricky area that has a lot of caselaw behind it. There's no standard nationwide as far as what constitutes publicity rights, and there's also first amendment questions which enter into the analysis. A quick example: I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach, then frame it and hang it in my photography gallery - I'm probably fine. I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach and use it in an ad for whatever beach-related crap I'm hawking - I'm probably violating her publicity rights by falsely implying she's endorsing my product.

In other words, people have a (property) right to their own image, but I also have a copyright to art I create capturing that image. There's a balance between the two that's pretty complicated. And it's also how EA gets away with putting college kids and old athletes in its games without paying them, like when Jim Brown sued them over using a black running back wearing #32 on the All-Browns historic team in Madden and lost.


Derp.  Have you ever played Madden?
 
2013-06-25 04:19:51 PM  
My head hurts from reading all that & I'm exhausted chasing after those continually moving goalposts.  However I can't really decide if MN is just a magnificent troll or someone who is that thickheadedly stubborn about something that he thinks is right (even when shown again & again he's wrong), it really is puzzling.

Whatever though, he is someone who in his profile brags about putting thousands of people on ignore (to create his own version of reality where everyone agrees with him I guess...), so I say we return the favor & then get back to talking about pretty women in bikinis...
 
2013-06-25 04:20:08 PM  

MNguy: derp derp derp.


You said it, brother. Actually, that's pretty much all you've said in this entire thread. While everyone else in this thread is trying to have a logical, rational discussion, here you are shiatting in the thread, attacking everyone with a different opinion than yourself. You are coming across as a petulent child, who can't come up with a reasoned argument so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
 
2013-06-25 04:20:11 PM  
Look, there is public  and private.  If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.
 
2013-06-25 04:21:01 PM  
Someone get sinbox and The Stealth Hippopotamus in here, stat. This thread needs a serious redirect.
 
2013-06-25 04:21:04 PM  
Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.
 
2013-06-25 04:24:29 PM  
Oh, your pretty little face couldn't come up with an ad .hominem, but I'm sure you tried
 
2013-06-25 04:31:16 PM  

MNguy: Oh, your pretty little face couldn't come up with an ad .hominem, but I'm sure you tried


Jesus Tits, you're full-bore retarded.
 
2013-06-25 04:31:36 PM  
Waldo Pepper:

are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..

I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes.  Are you saying that you should?
 
2013-06-25 04:31:40 PM  

MNguy: Look, there is public  and private.  If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.


Too bad you can't seem to figure out that when you're in PUBLIC, you have no expectation of PRIVACY.
 
2013-06-25 04:32:57 PM  
Clutch2013:

Jesus Tits, you're full-bore retarded.

Do you even speak english?
 
2013-06-25 04:34:08 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Look, there is public  and private.  If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.

Too bad you can't seem to figure out that when you're in PUBLIC, you have no expectation of PRIVACY.


Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creep.
 
2013-06-25 04:35:14 PM  

MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.


MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be. Really, you're a jackass.


There's one right there. Not to mention the countless accusations you've made that everyone in here is a pedo or a rapist.
 
2013-06-25 04:35:38 PM  

Waldo Pepper: MNguy: Waldo Pepper:

are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..

I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes.  Are you saying that you should?

you have no clue what child pornography is do you?


No, I don't know what pedophiles find interesting.  What do you all like?  Because don't take pictures of my family and I don't care what you like.
 
2013-06-25 04:37:00 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.

MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be. Really, you're a jackass.

There's one right there. Not to mention the countless accusations you've made that everyone in here is a pedo or a rapist.


You are an attorney?  No, you are not, and you are trying to come across as one.  Quit it.  And if you like to take pictures of little girls you are a pedo.
 
2013-06-25 04:37:04 PM  

MNguy: Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creep


Or what? You'll cry about it on the internet? Woooo!
 
2013-06-25 04:38:36 PM  
Look, the logical extension of these laws are going to allow some asshole to pohtograph your daughter.  If you're ok with that then fine.  But I am not.
 
2013-06-25 04:38:40 PM  

MNguy: You are an attorney? No, you are not, and you are trying to come across as one.


No I'm not. And stop calling me a pedo.
 
2013-06-25 04:39:22 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creep

Or what? You'll cry about it on the internet? Woooo!


Some creep like you will eventually reveal himself.
 
2013-06-25 04:40:52 PM  
I'm just calling you a creepy fark.  Maybe you're a pedophile, I don't know.  But there's no way in hell you're getting anywhere near anyone I care about.
 
2013-06-25 04:42:11 PM  
Waldo Pepper:

don't fret I have no intention of interfering with you taking your own pedo photos of your family.  you know since you consider all photos of children to be pedo photos I assume you have them of your own kids

I hope you felt dirty typing all of that.
 
2013-06-25 04:44:17 PM  
You ARE aware that not every photograph goes in someone's spank-bank, right? I mean, some of us use pictures for stuff other than jerking off. Me thinketh the dude doth protest too much...
 
2013-06-25 04:46:21 PM  
I don't doth nothing except I'd rather not have my kids be exploited.  But hey, to each their own
 
2013-06-25 04:49:10 PM  

MNguy: I don't doth nothing except I'd rather not have my kids be exploited.  But hey, to each their own


Taking a picture is not "exploitation". Seriously. It's not.
 
2013-06-25 04:57:53 PM  

MNguy: What did I say that was wrong?


Here:

MNguy: farking right her privacy was violated. It's like taking upskirt videos at the mall.


Here:

MNguy: F.A.T has kind of argued that it's ok.


And some more here:

MNguy: You are defending child pornography,


All of that is false. I've already pointed out your inconsistencies, no need to repeat them.

MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.


Ok. Here's the defenition, before you go asking for it:

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.

Here's a sampling of just the ones against me:

MNguy: You seem to be in favor of really disgusting practices.


MNguy: F.A.T may be the biggest jackoff I've ever seen on here.


MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.


Those right there are attacking me, not my arguments, and are irrelevant.. It'd be difficult to come up with better examples of ad hominem attack if you tried.
 
2013-06-25 04:58:40 PM  

Waldo Pepper: from wiki  The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce claims trademark rights over the sign's image and demands license fees for commercial use


It still falls under the same situations as using someone's likeness. If you're using it to endorse a product or service, you'll need their permission to use the trademark for that purpose. If you're displaying (or selling) art or using the photo for editorial purposes, they can sod off because trademark doesn't apply.

I don't believe you could take a photo of a girl at a beach (the photo would be of just her and showing her face) and sell it without her permission even as art, she owns her image. Now if the photo is of the beach and she happens to be in it and isn't the main point of the photo, I believe this would be okay

Same thing applies here. The situation where you need a model release is when the person is recognizable in the photograph (this one, you play on the safe side, because it's easy for a friend or acquaintance to say "yeah I recognize them" in court) AND you're using the photograph for commercial purposes. Note that selling the photo to a magazine is NOT a commercial purpose. That's editorial. You can put it in a book of your photographic work all you want, as that's also not commercial, it's art. You may run into some gray area putting it on the cover of said book, as someone could argue that the cover is advertising the book, which is a commercial product. So I'd stay away from using a cover photo that includes a recognizable person without a model release.
 
2013-06-25 05:03:52 PM  
I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.
 
2013-06-25 05:08:48 PM  

MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.


Hello, Kettle? This is Pot, calling you black.
 
2013-06-25 05:15:45 PM  
When did they stop calling these things radio controlled aircraft and start calling them drones?
 
2013-06-25 05:22:09 PM  

Waldo Pepper: I understand editorial and I agree except if she lands on the cover as it could be argued that her likeness is being used to sell the magazine (think non famous person on the cover of time).


Yeah, that's correct. I'm not sure that the magazine/book cover issue has been settled yet. Most court cases rule that magazine and book covers are editorial in nature, but personally, I'm not going there. If I don't have a model release, I'm not putting it on a cover.

I guess the art angle makes sense.  keeping with the hollywood sign, You could sell it in your gallery or on a photo site for personal use but you couldn't sell it to Ikea to sell.would that be correct.

Absolutely correct. If you're selling it as art or licensing the photo to illustrate a magazine article or something, you're safe. You just can't license it for someone to use in an advertisement, because then it looks like Hollywood endorses the product.

so you are also saying that I could take a photo of at the beach and if MN kids are in the background of the photo there would nothing he could do from me selling the photo?
Yeah. Sounds like we're on the same page. I can sell the photo itself (of the beach with MN's family) all I want (it's art). I can also license it to a magazine, book, or newspaper so they can use it in an article. I just can't license it to a company for use in advertising unless the people in the photo are unrecognizable (too small, back turned, etc) or I have a model release.
 
2013-06-25 05:27:07 PM  

MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.


More ad hominem, huh?
 
2013-06-25 05:30:39 PM  

Waldo Pepper: it might be difficult to get that model release from MN to clean for his taste


LOL
 
2013-06-25 05:41:26 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: I'm sorry that F.A.T is a moran.

More ad hominem, huh?


that was the first one, tard
 
2013-06-25 05:43:48 PM  

MNguy: that was the first one, tard


So all the ones before don't count?
 
2013-06-25 07:02:09 PM  

Guadior42: DirkTheDaring: Repetitive attack ad hominem does not make a clever troll. It just makes a boring one.

This is why I ignored him quite some time ago. You can only take so much repetitive idiocy.


Yes but I'm sure he'll try and one-up you on that. He states in his profile that his ignore list is up to 1000 people now. Because that's serious business, and you farking pedos need to be informed!!!!

Look MN, are you going to troll EVERY thread this week, or just this one? We need to plan our boredom around that.
 
2013-06-25 07:22:44 PM  
I read some 100+ posts at the top, figured I'd add my 2 cents.

Quad-copters or multi-rotor copters look like a lot of fun, I'm thinking of getting one for my GoPro.  I never considered hovering over people in their back yards....of course in my neighborhood, it be old people....so screw that.

These flying machines and their on-board brains have gotten pretty spiffy it seems.  They have gyros for stability, they are able to return home when commanded.  The systems can auto correct for wind, tilt and weight load.

From what I've been reading/listening to on youtube, flight times are pretty limited because of battery life and battery weight.  You are not going be able to fly your quad for 2 hours at a time....more like 6-10 minutes, I think.

The quad in this story had what looks like a First Person View ( FPV ) which means you watch your flight from a remote view system (ipad, goggles, etc.)  This guy could likely see where he was going through the camera, which means he probably did see the girl on the side of the pool.  She'd have to be deaf not to have heard the quad....they are no whisper quiet.....at least not on the videos I've watched.  However, I don't know what kind of quality you can get from a fpv camera.  I sorta doubt they are go pro quality.

So there is your quick lesson.  Check out Quad copters on youtube.  Looks like a lot of fun, or it will be until some jackwagon mis-uses his quad and some equally goofy politician passes a law against them.
 
2013-06-25 08:16:42 PM  
Man, this is one of the worst Fark meltdowns I've seen year.
 
2013-06-25 09:22:26 PM  

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Man, this is one of the worst Fark meltdowns I've seen year.


LOL ... I know what you mean...  I have just been shaking my head this whole thread.
 
2013-06-25 09:40:54 PM  

Waldo Pepper: fanbladesaresharp: Guadior42: DirkTheDaring: Repetitive attack ad hominem does not make a clever troll. It just makes a boring one.

This is why I ignored him quite some time ago. You can only take so much repetitive idiocy.

Yes but I'm sure he'll try and one-up you on that. He states in his profile that his ignore list is up to 1000 people now. Because that's serious business, and you farking pedos need to be informed!!!!

Look MN, are you going to troll EVERY thread this week, or just this one? We need to plan our boredom around that.

I'm surprised he didn't join the pixar threads and accuse those who go to pixar movies without having kids as being pedo


The worst are the ones who go WITH kids... now there's a pedo!
 
Displayed 50 of 313 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report