Annoying thing with Mavic 3

[jephoto]

That ship has already sailed. It's now reality, and not just paranoia with a 7x telephoto camera on a consumer drone. Drones can be used for good and for evil and everything in between, just like other cameras and weapons. Same with cars and planes. We don't ban them all of them just because we don't like how they can be used. We prohibit the specific illegal activity, for which laws already exist.

And in fact, you are absolutely correct that it may not be technically illegal to do this. The problem is somebody bragging about it on a public forum.
The Internet is a big giant digital recording machine. Someone will dig those words up and use them to fuel the fire down the line. That will just bring increased scrutiny and paranoia that will affect all of the rest of us.
As drone pilots, we are already subjected to a great deal of paranoia about the same thing.

If someone want to brag about using your drone to look at women on the beach or hotel rooftops, do it with your friends verbally…
Just my opinion.

 

[GadgetGuy]

And in fact, you are absolutely correct that it may not be technically illegal to do this. The problem is somebody bragging about it on a public forum.
The Internet is a big giant digital recording machine. Someone will dig those words up and use them to fuel the fire down the line. That will just bring increased scrutiny and paranoia that will affect all of the rest of us.
As drone pilots, we are already subjected to a great deal of paranoia about the same thing.

If someone want to brag about using your drone to look at women on the beach or hotel rooftops, do it with your friends verbally…
Just my opinion.

Agreed. Whether it is bragging or explaining is open to interpretation. He didn't supply the additional controversial explanation in the first post.

The advantage of the Mavic 3 is that it can be used from so far away in sensitive areas that it is far less likely that people and wildlife will even be aware of it, regardless of its usage, so it is theoretically paranoia "neutral."

In my experience, the hovering drone is what most people freak out about. Unfortunately, that's necessary for shooting 360° panos, which will draw the most attention, even though 360° panos never use the telephoto lens or any digital zoom. Depending upon the subject of the 360° pano, it often requires hovering at low elevation for over a minute when paranoid people may be nearby.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Privately owned hotels are not public spaces. Yes, the airspace above them may be.

Some of the people waving does not mean that all present consent to being photographed.

I'm not interested in a legal debate, but the activity described by the OP is clearly illegal in some jurisdictions. Texas is an example. Gov. Code Section 423.002(a): Clarifies the legality of using drones to capture images by certain professionals (such as photographers), with the requirement that individuals are not identifiable in images unless they have given express permission.

The activity described by the OP may well be legal in some or many places. But legal or not, it is one of the causes of the negative perception of drones on the part of many people. Bottom line: most folks would find it "creepy."

If you read the link I provided, you will discover that private ownership does not prevent the space from being considered public for legal purposes. If it is open to the public, it is considered public. A hotel pool is certainly open to members of the public and a tourist attraction.

Consent is not necessary for photographing people in public spaces, by anyone.

Since we aren't engaging in a legal debate, your conclusion that the activity is "clearly illegal" in some jurisdictions, with TX as the example, is clearly flawed on its face. You have incorrectly characterized the OP hobbyist as a professional, as though all photographers are professionals, and are now conflating a hobbyist taking photos for his own enjoyment with professionals publishing images. Section 423.002(a) does not prohibit the taking of such photographs. It merely prohibits the publishing of such images with identifiable people that haven’t given consent. As long as the faces are blurred in any published images taken by "certain professionals," nothing illegal has occurred. I also strongly suspect that this does not apply to any public figures, as it would require the arrest of every paparazzi!

Again, my only point is that it is a legal activity. Creepiness is subjective, and even if most people agree with you, it still doesn't make it illegal. Drones already had a very negative perception even before they had cameras, from their military use to kill people. Calling them quadcopters instead never really caught on. That ship has already sailed. Using a drone to photograph waving women in public in their bathing suits isn't going to make it any worse, as much as you don't like it.

 

[GadgetGuy]

I'm in the Philippines, and as far as I know it's not illegal here. I also don't consider it inappropriate. Some guys here go around, and video girls they don't know, and put it on YouTube. Why else do you think DJI put a zoom lens on the mavic 3? I only wish it was 20x or more. Actually, everyone here that see's my drone, waves to me.

It's actually 28x at its highest digital zoom on the 7x telephoto camera. As long as they are waving, carry on! If they give you the finger, move along!

 

[Wreckhunter]

I'm in the Philippines, and as far as I know it's not illegal here. I also don't consider it inappropriate. Some guys here go around, and video girls they don't know, and put it on YouTube. Why else do you think DJI put a zoom lens on the mavic 3? I only wish it was 20x or more. Actually, everyone here that see's my drone, waves to me.

All you would see if you tried zooming in would be a pixelated mess with that zoom camera anyway.

 

[GadgetGuy]

All you would see if you tried zooming in would be a pixelated mess with that zoom camera anyway.

Clearly, you have never owned a Mavic 3. It has no zoom camera. The second camera is a 7x telephoto camera, which has an additional 4x digital zoom. It's plenty good enough for SAR, and wildlife identification, and Exploring, which is its intent. After identification, one can fly as close as needed to use either camera.

 

[shb]

All you would see if you tried zooming in would be a pixelated mess with that zoom camera anyway.

What I meant, is that instead of having the 7x telephoto, it had a 20x or more. Even though if you goto 28x digital zoom, the picture is blurry, it is still stable without camera shake, so they could of put on a stronger telephoto in my opinion.

 

[Wreckhunter]

What I meant, is that instead of having the 7x telephoto, it had a 20x or more. Even though if you goto 28x digital zoom, the picture is blurry, it is still stable without camera shake, so they could of put on a stronger telephoto in my opinion.

If you did something like that in the US without ones consent,it could land you in a heap of trouble.
It is very inappropriate,wherever you do it no question on that.
As far as getting back to the topic of the zoom camera,sure 20x would be nice but probably not doable
at least not yet.

 

[shb]

If you did something like that in the US without ones consent,it could land you in a heap of trouble.
It is very inappropriate,wherever you do it no question on that.
As far as getting back to the topic of the zoom camera,sure 20x would be nice but probably not doable
at least not yet.

Back in the late 80's and early 90's, me and some of my friends, went down to the Huntington Beach, California, pier, and videoed girls on the beach, and no police ever said anything, even when they walked right by us. How us this any different?

 

[Wreckhunter]

Back in the late 80's and early 90's, me and some of my friends, went down to the Huntington Beach, California, pier, and videoed girls on the beach, and no police ever said anything, even when they walked right by us. How us this any different?

Im done here as what you are doing does not belong on here.

 

[shb]

Im done here as what you are doing does not belong on here.

You and MS Coast started bitching about what I'm doing, not me.

 

[AnzacJack]

Bait set and you caught a couple of whoppers. Hahaha
Opinions are like ********. everyone has one

 

[GadgetGuy]

What I meant, is that instead of having the 7x telephoto, it had a 20x or more. Even though if you goto 28x digital zoom, the picture is blurry, it is still stable without camera shake, so they could of put on a stronger telephoto in my opinion.

Well, if you want even more total zoom, the Mavic 3E offers a 56x hybrid zoom.
A bigger telephoto like a 20x wouldn't work on the Mavic 3 because of the additional weight and much slower aperture that it would require. The 28x and 56x digital zooms are not intended for anything other than identification. For best quality, photography and video should be done without any digital zoom at 7x on the telephoto or 1x on the main camera.

DJI Mavic 3E drone​

The DJI Mavic 3E drone integrates a 20 MP wide-angle camera with a 4/3-inch CMOS sensor featuring large 3.3μm pixels that, together with Intelligent Low-Light Mode, offer significantly improved performance in dim conditions. You also get a 56x hybrid zoom camera that provides an equivalent focal length of 162mm for 12MP images.

 

[GadgetGuy]

If you did something like that in the US without ones consent,it could land you in a heap of trouble.

Because you say so? Got anything legal to back that up with?
The subject has already been discussed in detail above as to legality.
It is completely legal. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
You can legally photograph anyone you want in public, whether they like it or not.

 

[GadgetGuy]

Back in the late 80's and early 90's, me and some of my friends, went down to the Huntington Beach, California, pier, and videoed girls on the beach, and no police ever said anything, even when they walked right by us. How us this any different?

It's not.

 

[shb]

Just put this one on the Mavic 4. It might be a little front heavy!

 

[GadgetGuy]

Just put this one on the Mavic 4. It might be a little front heavy!
View attachment 159551

Also very difficult to remotely change focus from infinity for anything closer. Manual focus only. No autofocus.
Kind of slow, too, at f/6.3.

 

[codex22]

You surely can't do this in Germany. Whether something is a public place or not doesn't matter here, you just can't photograph people without their consent. You can get away with crowds, but as soon as the person(s) are the main subject of the photograph (which the bikini girls surely are) you have to have consent BEFORE you even press the trigger.

 

[GadgetGuy]

You surely can't do this in Germany. Whether something is a public place or not doesn't matter here, you just can't photograph people without their consent. You can get away with crowds, but as soon as the person(s) are the main subject of the photograph (which the bikini girls surely are) you have to have consent BEFORE you even press the trigger.

Citations please...

 

[codex22]

Citations please...

Really now ...

Google "Recht am eigenen Bild" if you understand German. If not I surely won't translate it for you. If you can't Google, then here is one passage you would find (there would be thousands like that):

Recht am eigenen Bild – das steht im Gesetz​

Jeder darf selbst bestimmen, ob er fotografiert oder gefilmt werden will und ob und wo die Aufnahmen veröffentlicht werden dürfen. So folgt es aus dem allgemeinen Persönlichkeitsrecht, wie es [COLOR=var(--color-petrol-dark)]Artikel 2 Absatz 1 des Grundgesetzeshttps://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_2.html garantiert. Schon fürs bloße Knipsen gilt: Sie dürfen nur Menschen fotografieren oder filmen, die damit auch einverstanden sind. Wer Foto- oder Filmaufnahmen von Personen ohne deren Einverständnis veröffentlicht, dem droht sogar eine Strafe. So steht es ausdrücklich in Paragraf 22 und 32 des [COLOR=var(--color-petrol-dark)]Kunsturhebergesetzes[/COLOR]. Bis zu ein Jahr Freiheitsstrafe verhängen die Gerichte bei Verstößen.[/COLOR]

Put that in Google translate, it comes out nicely in English.

It has nothing to do with drone laws, but with basic people's rights. If you do it commercially, then there is also the issue of DSVGO - which is about what information you are allowed to store about people, including images of said people.