Good that the woman was charged and is being prosecuted for assaulting the teen?

Hope the jury nullifies and lets her walk. Shame she wasn't smarter. A toy bow and arrow with a fishing line attached would go a nice number on a quadcopter if you can get it to tangle into the rotors, all without assaulting anyone physically.

Also, wonder what a Super Soaker full of salt water would do to electronics Some water guns easily have a range of 50 feet.

I get it as a hobby. I also think that hobbyists should show some respect and fly outside of peak beach hours. And yes, if similar things as I suggested happened to befall gov't or corporate-run drones, I wouldn't shed any tears either.

So, next we should have open-season on tourists with cameras?
We're talking about photographing a public beach from some distance away. Not upskirting or hovering outside someone's bathroom window.
The fact that the camera was remotely operated, and not actually being held in his hand shouldn't make any difference.
Yes. It is good that the woman was charged and is being prosecuted for assaulting the teen!

Happy Motoring, Mark

__________________
DrDKW

If the tourist hovers 50 feet above people and takes pictures, yeah, I can understand that people might object. I don't think drone use should be illegal, but I won't shed any tears if a drone operator in a crowded or semi-private area gets slapped around a bit (or if their drone gets destroyed) either.

So, there should be bans on camera lenses over 200mm? Can I take a bat to the Google Maps car the next time I see one? Tell me that you have never used "Street View" because it potentially violates everyone's privacy . . .

Coming to a bedroom window in your neighborhood!

Personally, I'd root for anyone who successfully destroys a Google Maps car. i.e., if I were on the jury for their vandalism trial, my vote would be NOT GUILTY regardless of circumstance. As far as camera lenses, I wouldn't support banning them, but if someone is impolite about how they use them, they deserve what may come to them. I consider what the drone jockey did to be pretty impolite.

Sometimes the rest of the neighborhood would welcome the occupants closing their bedroom window blinds . . . there are some things you just can't "unsee."

But you're not personally into it. Got it.

Can't argue with that.

We are playing with a combo of a type of steadicam and drone. A lot of it is the drone operator and the weather. Plus the current fad for running action shots gives you some leeway into how stable the platform needs to be.

A cherry picker (for video) is a good route to go if you are only talking one POV. If you need to do a wide 360 shot it is not practical but it can do 360 close-ups if the operator is skilled enough to do it without hitting something.

But this application is for lighting which needs to come on as if by magic and follows the action over a tracking shot which bobs and weaves. This could be does in a digital format but the cost for post effects, even using offshore houses to do the work, would still be greater than using the drone for the lighting effects.

There are costs of security and permits, but you have to have those anyway.

Some states have passed laws against the Stalkarazzi. I don't have the problem of people trying to take my photo but then I am a nobody. For Actors this is a big problem and it is tough to lead a normal life which drives some of them to be quite direct with people who are trying to take their picture.

The conundrum of celebrity.

I have zero sympathy for celebrities. All they have to do is say, "NO" to publicity and stay out of the limelight. They whine when they get publicity they don't want and whine when they do not get publicity they do want. In other words, they want to control the media buzz around them. That's a reasonable desire, but an unreasonable expectation.

I have almost boundless sympathy for private citizens and their privacy.