13.6 C
London
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Home Tags Filming

Tag: filming

WDRB says it flew a drone “in accordance to the FAA rules to cover news.”
This sport camera is a budget-friendly alternative to GoPro.
It averages 4.5 out of 5 stars from over 230 reviewers on Amazon, where Its list price of $100 is currently discounted 37% to just $64.

Designed to be used for biking, hiking, diving, swim...
Over six years of filming, Laura Poitras follows the elusive and distant Wikileaks founder from a friend's Norfolk estate to his Ecuadorian Embassy bolt-hole.
"Were the law otherwise," judge says, Utah could outlaw "creating music videos."
VR in only 180 degrees is easier to stream and fits traditional video content better.
Brother confirms existing footage, not CGI, will be used to complete Episode IX.
Mosquitos generate lift via three mechanisms, two of them new to us.
Filming cops, 2-1 court rules, ensures that they "are not abusing their power."
New Jersey officer becomes enraged that he is being filmed during traffic stop.
reader comments 99 Share this story
Excerpts from Michael Slager's testimony. A white South Carolina police officer on trial for shooting an African-American man in the back—in a video of the killing that has been watched millions of times online—took the witness stand in his own defense and said he was gripped with "total fear." Michael Slager, a 35-year-old North Charleston officer, is on trial for killing Walter Scott, 50, who was pulled over in April 2015 for a routine traffic stop.
Scott, who had a warrant for his arrest, fled the Mercedes-Benz he was driving, was chased into a field, and was then shot and killed as a passerby secretly captured the shooting on video.

The footage prompted the police to change their response to the killing, and charges were eventually levied. "In my mind at that time was, people don't run for a broken tail light.

There's always another reason," he testified Tuesday, sometimes in tears. "I don't know why he ran.
It doesn't make any sense to me." "My mind was like spaghetti," the officer said in his self-defense testimony. Slager faces anywhere from 30 years to life if convicted of murder, and a term of between two and 30 years if convicted of voluntary manslaughter.

The monthlong trial continued Wednesday in a Charleston, South Carolina, court.

The defense team was unsuccessful earlier in trying to keep jurors from seeing the video that a local man took as he happened upon the scene while he was walking to work. The officer testified that after the brief chase, a struggle ensued, and he fired his Taser on Scott.

Then Scott grabbed his Taser, the officer said. "He rips it out of my hand," Slager testified, adding: "I knew I was in trouble.
I was scared. "I was in total fear that Mr.
Scott didn't stop, continued to come towards me," he said.
Feidin Santana, a 24-year-old South Carolina man, came upon the scene and began filming at about this point in last year's confrontation.
Santana had said that another police officer on the scene "told me to stop" recording. After Slager said there was a confrontation over the Taser, Slager said he readied his firearm. "At that point I pulled my firearm and pulled the trigger," he testified. "I fired until the threat was stopped as I was trained to do. "I didn't know if I hit him.
I didn't know if he tripped or fell," Slager said. Scott was shot five times in the back. The video shows the officer placing a Taser next to the dead man, whom Slager had handcuffed. He said he wasn't trying to plant evidence, but was following police procedure to take stock of their weapons. "I must have dropped it by Mr.
Scott's body.
I don't remember doing that," he said. Closing arguments are expected to begin Wednesday, after which the case will go to the jury for deliberations. Listing image by YouTube
EnlargeEmmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images reader comments 7 Share this story In an effort to stamp down on irresponsible drone flights, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)—which regulates all flights in the UK—has launched a new version of the "Dronecode." The Dronecode is a set of rules, regulations, and recommendations originally launched in 2015 that stated drones must stay within sight of the pilot, below an altitude of 400 feet (120 metres), that they must stay away from aircraft and airports, and that operators must use common sense to keep others safe. However, according to research conducted by the CAA, only 39 percent of drone owners have actually heard of the Dronecode, with only 36 percent being made aware of it at the time of purchase. To make things a little easier for pilots to remember, the watchdog has come up with a mnemonic aid as follows: Don't fly near airports or airfields Remember to stay below 400ft (120m) and at least 150ft (50m) away from buildings and people Observe your drone at all times Never fly near aircraft Enjoy responsibly While you can't help but feel the CAA stopped trying by the time it got to the letter "O," there's no doubt that some drone pilots could use some common sense. Earlier this month it emerged that airline pilots reported four near misses with drones in a month, including one flying near London's Shard and another at Liverpool airport. One pilot even reported he could identify the particular brand of drone that came within 100 meters of the plane because "his son had the very same model." Drone crime has also soared in the UK, with police being called in to investigate alleged pedophiles filming playgrounds, high-tech drug-runners trying to smuggle contraband into prisons, and even one occasion when a man was caught filming people at an ATM in Northern Ireland. Alongside the Dronecode, the CAA and air traffic control body NATS has also launched dronesafe.uk, which includes the regulator's rules as well as training resources. UK retailer Maplin said it will ensure those that buy drones in the run up to Christmas are aware of the Dronecode at the time of purchase. This post originated on Ars Technica UK
Pablo Ares Gastesireader comments 63 Share this story The Tennessee Supreme Court is vacating the child-porn production conviction of a Knoxville man, named Thomas Whited, who secretly filmed his 12-year-old daughter—and 14-year-old friend—showering, going to the bathroom, and undressing.

Although the father recorded the bathroom for two months for sexual reasons, the high court vacated his 22-year sentence because what he filmed did not amount to pornography.

The girls were not having sex, the high court reasoned (PDF) Monday, and instead the minors were videotaped in the bathroom performing "everyday activities." Most states define child pornography to some extent on whether it is intended to sexually arouse the viewer, which was the case in the prosecution of Whited, a US Army National Guardsman. However, under Tennessee's child pornography laws, the intent of the viewer or producer of the recorded images doesn't matter. What does matter, however, is the story the images tell. Tennessee defines child porn as depicting children having sex, simulated "sexual activity," and "lascivious exhibition" of children's private parts.

There was no sexual or simulated sexual activity being filmed in the case of Whitfield, and the term "lascivious" is overbroad, the high court reasoned.

Because of that vagueness in "lascivious," the court suggested that filming a baby's first bath could be considered child porn: The question is close, but we must hold that the videos at issue do not rise to a level at which the trier of fact could reasonably find that they include "sexual activity," defined as the "lascivious exhibition" of the minor's private body areas.... Rather, the minors in the videos are engaging in everyday activities that are appropriate for the settings and are not sexual or lascivious within the ordinary meaning of those terms.

For this reason, we reverse and dismiss the defendant's nine convictions for especially aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. The court added that the video producer's "subjective intent or purpose of sexual arousal or gratification" is immaterial. "To determine the sufficiency of the evidence, the court must focus on the material at issue and ask whether it includes a depiction of the lascivious exhibition of a minor‘s private body areas," the court ruled. "Assessing the videos in the instant case, we conclude that the videos do not include a minor engaging in a lascivious exhibition." A jury in 2013 found Whited guilty of nine counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, one count of attempted aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, 13 counts of observation without consent, and one count of attempted observation without consent.

The defendant was brought to trial after his wife discovered the video on his mobile phone. The state's high court noted that its ruling "does not mean that the defendant's conduct does not constitute a criminal offense." The court, which did not disturb the other charged counts, ordered Whited to be re-sentenced in light of the nine main counts being overturned.