Philmycock Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 We won! So who cares if some geek flew a drone over the ground!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papahet Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Why are the people getting so het up about it? It's merely a two minute aerial clip showing the stadiums beauty under a floodlit pitch. It wouldn't have fallen and knocked someone out cold as it was over the West stands roof, not the pitch and what's the broadcasting rights the club are harping on about? It's no different to recording a goal or a magical moment with a phone and sticking it up on Youtube. Drama queens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-JW- Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Sorry guys, I didn't think I'd cause this much of a fuss. I won't fly it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 If Derby had their little taste of the deal all would be good. I expect they're kicking themselves that they've not done it first themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 its illegal under air navigation order tk fly an aircraft - even unmanned - within 150m of an open air event with mote than 1000 people attending without CAA permission. Its for safety of people and properties - these are big things and if it fell oit the sky onto someone it would probably kill them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 its illegal under air navigation order tk fly an aircraft - even unmanned - within 150m of an open air event with mote than 1000 people attending without CAA permission. Its for safety of people and properties - these are big things and if it fell oit the sky onto someone it would probably kill themI understand. But if you got that on camera, you'd get Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 its illegal under air navigation order tk fly an aircraft - even unmanned - within 150m of an open air event with mote than 1000 people attending without CAA permission. Its for safety of people and properties - these are big things and if it fell oit the sky onto someone it would probably kill them Says the bloke who killed a protected species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenportram Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Says the bloke who killed a protected species. It committed suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I don't think John Vicars was all that impressed either ....Simon Hare retweeted"https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/441174645111152640/q0TY8cho_normal.jpeg" alt="q0TY8cho_normal.jpeg">John Vicars @johnrvicars[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 It's probably more that DCFC knew nothing about it until the video surfaced. It looks to be promotional material by the drone's owners - but it includes copyrighted/trademarked images/logos etc. without permission (it seems), and as such is breach of copyright law. A business has to protect it's interests. With the FL rights, DCFC have probably sought to distance themselves from it, as it could land them in some trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 It's probably more that DCFC knew nothing about it until the video surfaced. It looks to be promotional material by the drone's owners - but it includes copyrighted/trademarked images/logos etc. without permission (it seems), and as such is breach of copyright law. A business has to protect it's interests. With the FL rights, DCFC have probably sought to distance themselves from it, as it could land them in some trouble. ****** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Why is it ******? If they don't condemn it then the FL rights people won't be impressed. It might be "no diferent to filming it on your phone and posting it on youtube" but you aren't lgally allowed to do that either, and the club can't be seen to promoting anyone doing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale The Ram Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 ive got to admit this video is absolutely beautiful Id love to see it at every stadium Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Why is it ******? If they don't condemn it then the FL rights people won't be impressed. It might be "no diferent to filming it on your phone and posting it on youtube" but you aren't lgally allowed to do that either, and the club can't be seen to promoting anyone doing it They aren't hijacking anyones copyrighted/trademarked images/logos etc. See above .....be a bit more positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 ****** Sadly not, but thanks for your insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 So what about every single photo of Pride Park ever taken? All illegal due to image rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 They aren't hijacking anyones copyrighted/trademarked images/logos etc. See above .....be a bit more positive. If it was a personal video, then no. But it's for promotional material - and you can clearly see iPro (registered trademark), the Ram logo, the Ram's head, and with good eyesight, Toyota logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 If it was a personal video, then no. But it's for promotional material - and you can clearly see iPro (registered trademark), the Ram logo, the Ram's head, and with good eyesight, Toyota logo. They are all getting free exposure. P.s. You don't work in the multi- storey car park next to the Eagle Centre market do you? The security man there once told me it was illegal to take photographs of Derby from the car park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animal is a Ram Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 They are all getting free exposure. P.s. You don't work in the multi- storey car park next to the Eagle Centre market do you? The security man there once told me it was illegal to take photographs of Derby from the car park. Nope, and it isn't. I've done a fair bit of photography and know the laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 TV companies spend a lot of money securing exclusive rights to moving images of sporting events. I don't think ramsnuts arguments would stand up against their expensive lawyers either. I'm not sure why ramsnuts is so bothered anyway What's up ramsnuts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.