>>1786435 (OP)
So I don't get it. The beginning location looks like a private location, not an open space.

Either way, the dude's a total dick for abusing his rights to freedom of speech and press. I mean, he's obviously trying to instigate people. 12 year olds need to stay in their room.

>legal

Nope its up to the individual and privacy laws

Whether or not it's legal, I feel like it should be 100%.

But just because it's legal, doesn't mean the guy isn't a massive cunt bitch faggot who needs to get his faced smashed in.

he's a cunt and he's on private property, so not legal.

That guy is a total dick. He walks into a private classroom and starts filming, is asked to leave, and just walks straight back in?
I would have called the cops on that faggot.

although he is being a dick it does raise an interesting point

>>1786435 (OP)
What this guy is doing is harassment plain and simple. He can't just sit down and start filming someone who is having a private conversation and then keep doing it when they ask him to stop or go away.

That guy is just a total bitch who clearly doesn't understand the law. otherwise parts of the video, wouldn't have been in private property.

This video touches the subject better, and the people in it aren't dicks at all, and helpfully explain their cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7Hcluo

>>1786494
what point? that there are surveillance cameras?

>>1786494
I assume his point is that CCTV films us all the time.
But the difference is CCTV doesn't interrupt classrooms, or sit down opposite you at a coffee shop while you are on the phone. Or go right up in your face filming you.
It films everyone and is beneficial when it comes to preventing crime and catching criminals.

you're right i guess

>>1786501
and 95% of cameras don't have audio.

>>1786503
Yep. And CCTV isn't exactly broadcast to the entire world like a youtube video.

You seem confused, OP

>>1786506
It's people like you and others in this thread that are letting the world become a more restricted place.

The guy is a dick.
He is obviously on an educational campus, not a public space, so any one of those staff is perfectly entitled to tell him to stop filming.
I photograph people in public a lot, and some of them get upset, but I am never trolling like this asshat, and I am always 100% legally able to do what I do, and I know it.
I hope he got his ass kicked, legally or physically, or both.
Fucking sociopaths.
>>1786497
This is totally different. Why are you even confusing public space with space that clearly isn't public?

>>1786514
it's people like the cunt in the video that makes authority want to put restrictions.

1) Private Property
2) Expectation of privacy

File: 1353813982564.png-(17 KB, 820x890, IMG_2550.png)

>>1786497
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7Hcluo

>>1786451
>lives under a fascist government

>>1786515

Okay, i will give you that, on the part of private space. but filming in private space is illegal, so also on that part, the video has no moral.

The reason i posted the video is also because you see security and people asking to not film them.
then the police comes and tells them to carry on.

A lot of the video OP posted was also in public space. although the guy in the video is a total cunt with no sense of social skills whatsoever to backup what he thought was right and would actually harrass people.

>>1786526
>not realizing it was a social experiment

File: 1353814501615.png-(377 KB, 1282x716, Screen Shot 2012-11-24 at(...).png)

>>1786526
>>1786528

It was an experiment that yielded positive results. none of the photographers were rude. they clearly explained what they were doing and corrected themselves if they were indeed in private property. all the cops that showed up knew the law and just followed thru with the call and stood by the photographer's rights to carry on.

if the asshole on the first video didn't even have a camera and just went to the same people to stare at them, the results would have been exactly the same. it was more about harassment than videoing.

expectation of privacy is needed. even as a photographer I wouldn't want anybody walking into my studio and pointing a camera and not answer questions in my property. hope he gets his head smashed open.

>>1786528

I know it's a social experiment, and so was the one i posted.


>>1786533

That's exactly what I trying to get across. expectation of privacy is a real thing, and a lot of people have it. the best way to deal with it, is just to politely tell them what you were doing, that you are allowed to do that, and say sorry.

>>1786538
but the first video was a social experiment to see how far he can go before getting his assed kicked.

>>1786526
Admittedly I couldn't watch it for more than the first few minutes.
Trolls are extremely boring.
In the US the Law is similar to Australia, except that the US also has some really wishy-washy laws that result in different interpretations depending on how much money you have to throw at lawyers.
>Katz v. United States the Supreme Court
>"the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected."

People often do assume that they have a right to stop you recording them, but most of the time they do not have any such right. So it's worth making the point where the distinction lies between when it's legally ok, and when it's not.
However this video makes no point whatsoever other than the fact that the person who made it does not understand the law, lacks even a basic modicum of respect for other people, and comes across as a complete dickhead in their own video. If it does make such points i certainly didn't have the patience to sit through enough of it's childish pretence to see it.
It's totally counterproductive, confusing, just makes people see a justifiable reason to punch him in the head, and by extension this malice bleeds into the rest of us who are not trolls or filming people just to be cockheads.

>>1786542

In that sense, it makes total sense. that guy is a fucking douchebag.

OP asked:
>Why can't people understand that it is perfectly legal to film and take photos in public spaces?

and posted that video, which to me, failed to answer his question. because it's people like that guy that makes people not want to be filmed by others.

>>1786543
Discussion of these topics sometimes results in some legal references being linked... and theres some pseudosticky sections that really need filling in with actual reliable legal information.. so discussion is a good thing.
http://pseudosticky.wikia.com/#References-Legal

>>1786552

holy shit, government buildings open to the public? even if that's legal, never gonna bother to even try it haha.

But it's good knowing where you are allowed to take pictures, makes explaining much easier. this is a great little info on the law, thanks!
http://petapixel.com/assets/store/photographersrights.txt

>>1786435 (OP)

>that girl in the second clip on the very right that seems excited to be filmed

at least the douche was offered a fuck for 10 bucks.

>He walks up into the fucking orchestra.

He's got some gall.

This video is DAMN funny, for a couple of reasons at least:

1.) How ignorant people actually are to still/motion picture taking rights in public spaces

2.)Just seeing how angry people get in general. Like their lives are so important and special you need to make an appointment with them just to get a picture of their face. So self-important.

George Carlin is turning in his grave.

>>1786574
Half of those weren't in public and all of them we're done in a pugnacious way

>>1786594
Seriously, this. What kind of patrician faggot would act like that in public? Fuck.

>>1786574
Finally someone with sense itt. I could watch shit like this all day.

If you don't want to be filmed people, don't leave the house.

>>1786598
>If you don't want to be filmed people, don't leave the house.
Some people, you just know they are going to get an ass whoopin sooner or later.
Hopefully it'll be after you refuse to obey a legal directive on private property where you are being a douchebag. But in public for just being a douchebag would be cool too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HTXi-7yYdQ
DONT FUKN CORD ME BRO

>>1786594
>>1786597

Personally I wouldn't care. The last person I caught in one of my shots, asked me in a real joking manner "did you get a good shot of us?" Of course, I can't speak for a lot of people and maybe it is out of line. I just think it's funny that people's first reaction is anger and "GET OFF MY PROPERTY". Gives you an idea of how people really are...nobody's open to anybody, nobody wants to get to know anybody, they're so afraid and uncomfortable the minute somebody they don't know possibly takes a picture or video of them. Despite knowing that the stuff that's been captured will most likely never significantly impact their lives, and they'll never even see it, it still gets them so worried and bent out of shape. That's just really, really fascinating -- and amusing -- to me.

I'm guessing you could sue this jackass due the him violating the spirit of the law. Being filmed in public by someone with legit media purposes and fucking troll are two different things. It's just like freedom of speech, if you say "bomb" on a plane, you can't just be like "it's totally legal to say bomb". Also, goodluck winning a case against the person that kicks your ass. A reasonable person would assume that they are being filmed for malicious purposes do to the way this dude is not being open about his purposes for filming. But hey, I doubt none of you who claim that this is legal have the balls to do it yourselves.

>>1786634
Skydiving is legal and yet I have no interest in it. Should I petition to make it illegal? Because that is essentially what you're saying.

>>1786635
you are stupid.

How would another people, within reason, feel threatened by a skydiver? Do you understand that a random douchebag putting a camera in your face can be percieved as a threat by a reasonable person? Whether filming is legal or not, that person being filmed in that manner, can kick your ass and say that they felt threatened and would win 99/100 times.

>>1786627
Did anybody that he was filming photograph him back?
I'd be really curious to see what impression he was giving visually. His behind the camera demeanour was certainly not a positive one.
I'd have totally shot him in the face. But then I have conditioned that reflex into myself any time i see another photographer. Gotta beat em to the draw and feel like a cowboy.

People are worried about being filmed because you don't know the persons motivation for doing so, and it's easy to take video out of context. Teachers are particularly wary of students fucking with their career by trying to make them look stupid or incompetent to justify their failing grades.
If he thought he was making poignant social commentary then he should have *had a point* and done it in the context that he was legally allowed to be shooting (in public, which is not where he was) and recording peoples often aggressive and defensive nature when being recorded in places where they are being legitimately observed and watched anyway. But in classrooms, or invading peoples private discussions, even in public... seriously?
The way it's done here is just standard childish try-hard shock-tactics. Babbys first docu-drama-troll.
All it proves right now is that he is not very smart, and doesn't know how to make a point, nor the right time or place to record himself breaking the law. Also being a dick.

>>1786635
skydiving only affects the diver

>>1786642
>All it proves right now is that he is not very smart, and doesn't know how to make a point, nor the right time or place to record himself breaking the law
How was he breaking the law by filming in public?

>>1786640
Threatened by a camera? Maybe if you're a primitive moron who belongs in a zoo. Intelligent people don't respond with violence at every confrontation.

>>1786640
You'll maybe get charged for disturbing the peace, but not for the act of filming. If you aren't charged with breaking the peace, then you can counter sue for assault if they "kick your ass hurr durr masculine alpha male caveman mode engaged"

I for one don't do this because I take still photos and I shoot more like Bresson and less like Gilden. However I will argue that the act of filming or photographing in public is legal, and making things illegal because some twats take it to the extreme is a surefire way of making damn near everything illegal.

I haven't wasted my time watching the video, so I don't know or particularly care how much of a douche nozzle this guy was being. The point still stands that the mere act of photographing or filming in public is legal and damn well should stay that way.

>>1786642
Dude, you shoot people from 500m away, you aren't in a pistol duel situation, you're a marine sniping some towel head in the next province.

What happens if you go around taking photos of little kids in public then?

>>1786653
Tell me why every person in his clip looked and acted like they were threatened? Like I said, I doubt you have the balls to do this, since you claim it's okay. Any reasonable person would feel like they are being filmed for malicious purposes. I would love to see how you would react to some guy filming your daughter or son playing at a public playground.

>>1786642

>I'd have totally shot him in the face.


The fact that people immediately react to these kinds of situations with violence and anger instead of calmness and reasoning is pretty fucking sad.


I don't know why this society embraces the idea of beating the shit out of somebody because they're a little annoying. Maybe it's part of why this world is so fucked up. Maybe it's not. I don't know.

>>1786662
I thinky eggy meant "photograph", not "mow down with an AK".

If he did mean "pop pop pop makin' motha fuckas drop" then he's an internet toughguy in a sea of toughguys
>inb4 the "what the fuck did you just call me" copypasta

>>1786661
>Like I said, I doubt you have the balls to do this, since you claim it's okay
Just because something is legal doesn't mean that it has to be done. Just because someone agrees that something should remain legal doesn't mean that they must take it to the extreme. Are you a monkey? Most people shoot street with a semblance of consideration, and the actions of one fucknugget should not be grounds to make the entire practice of street photography illegal.


Get.
It.
Through.
Your.
Head.

>>1786655
>You'll maybe get charged for disturbing the peace, but not for the act of filming

semantics.

And if you actually watch the video, you'll see the difference between casually taking photographs from a distance, or being polite and saying "i'm a photography you look interesting" (you know just being courteous) and the way this dude would put his face in peoples faces and being a dick about it. Like I said, just because filming in legal doesn't excuse it from being taken as some kind of threat by a reasonable person.

If you went up to a girl and stood 1 inch behind her in public and continued to follow her and you didn't know her, if she maces you, you can't sue and be like "your honor i was just standing there minding my own business, i have a right to be in that spot behind her". Do you think you would win that lawsuit?

>>1786666
when did say it should be illegal? Of course filming in public is legal and should be a right, but just because something is legal doesn't mean it can't be taken as a threat by another person within reason. And the way this douche was filming was threatening and intrusive, even though legal. He was sitting down at tables in restaurantes and going in to buildings.

Follow the fucking dialogue in this thread dumbass.

The guy is a fucking idiot. The way he goes about the whole thing is creepy as fuck.
>walk into classroom
>stand there filming people without saying anything
>Teacher: you are who? (stupid way to phrase it, but easily understood)
>Him: huh?
>teachers repeats it
>Him: *mumbles* wut do you mean?

He barely explains why he is doing it.
>can you leave this is a classroom
LOL Im just taking a video
>can you please leave
you seem confused

wtf is up with that? oh you don't want to be filmed? you must be confused about the law!!

File: 1353825979708.png-(9 KB, 493x402, 0 the horror.png)

This is the most fucking retarded autistic bullshit I have ever seen.

10/10 OP, I'm mad.

>>1786650
>How was he breaking the law by filming in public?
The bits where he is in an educational facility and a member of staff directs him to cease, decist and leave...and actually calls the police. The only bit I could tolerate watching.
Not a public place, and then not complying with a legitimate directive to leave, by someone legally authorised to tell him to leave, after which is is committing trespass.
Illegal.
>>1786655
>you shoot people from 500m away
500mm is not 500m.
Most often its 10-20m... and well after they have seen me... as you can probably tell by the significant percentage of my photos where people are LOOKING DIRECTLY AT ME.
Still amazed that people think *any* lens lets you be as far away as some of you seem to think I am and still take the tight frames of people that I typically take.
facepalm.jpg
>>1786662
>violence and anger instead of calmness and reasoning is pretty fucking sad.
I agree.
You really need to read what I actually write, not what you think I wrote.
But that said; this guy is doing it wrong, and is basically just one of the people that make it worse for the rest of us as legit shooters of the public.

anger only started after douchebag refused to answer anything. there was no violence as a first response. all of them asked first what the fuck he was doing. he didn't answer or just very softly and cunty said a half answer. that's when confrontation began. compare to second video where there was a civilized dialogue. there is no defense or experimental value to this asshole.

and the skydiving analogy is very fucking stupid. skydiving is regulated to a certain space, time and circumstances. it would become illegal very quickly if people just started parachuting into public streets (as BASE jumping is illegal).

Also, someone really didn't understand George Carlin at all.

>>1786650
A good portion of the video was him inside buildings.
He even gets asked to stop filming by security at one point and just carries on.

In my country (Netherlands) everyone has portrait rights.

Meaning if you want to publish my picture you need to pay me.

Only there is one easy way around it: if you claim it's for a "news" story you don't need to pay.
That's how the paparazzi sell pictures without giving part of the earnings to the celebrities. - which IMO they should.

>>1786862
>That's how the paparazzi sell pictures without giving part of the earnings to the celebrities - which IMO they should.
>Implying celebs don't gain from tabloid exposure.

If the paparazzi don't shot you, you don't even exist.


>Meaning if you want to publish my picture you need to pay me.
This is all of Europe and America. Commercial use requires a release. Editorial doesn't.

>>1786642
>All it proves right now is that he is not very smart

>52 posts discussing privacy laws

And this isn't the first thread about it here, nor will this be the only forum.

I'll bet he reached many thousands of people with his message and sparked countless debates.
You're just jealous.

>>1786872

Celebrities might profit a bit.
But the gossip magazine industry is many billions of dollars per year.
Celebrities should be getting a large share of that, because they did the vast majority of the work.

The people in this video get so mad for so little reason
Unless the guy is masturbating off camera, I wouldn't mind someone filming me.

>>1786875
They support eachother, and the current system allows profit for both. Tabloids exist because of celebrities, and celebrities exist because of the tabloids.

The photographer is the one who is getting scraps.

>they did the vast majority of the work.
What work was that? Going out without underwear?

GOOD VIDEO