Illegally captured images

Bill Lawrywrote:

If ya want access, be respectful of the land and the land managers. Help them meet their responsibilities.  And hold onX to that standard. I doubt the Access Fund and all their lawyers would disagree.

Thats totally different than what you said before.

The real solution is as climbers we must always know the rules of the land we climb on, and come strapped. A simple slingshot with some birdshot bundles should be standard carry for everyone on NPS lands. If you see something, DO something. 

I'm coming for you Seneca Rocks drone users. 

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

For the love of God, someone explain to me why people capitalize random letters like this! Ive never been able to figure that one out. 

It's an old meme used to ridicule. 

Here's an example. It's tied to SpongeBob, although I am way too okd to know the direct reference as my kids were SpongeBob fans.

There is a really funny one out there from a text screenshot where a cheater is asking his GF not to tell his wife and she responds with mocking text.

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

Thats totally different than what you said before.

Main difference I see is that the first spelled out how to hold onX’s feet and the community’s feet to the fire so to speak while the second wasn’t so detailed.

Did I miss something, Matthew?

Bill Lawrywrote:

Main difference I see is that the first spelled out how to hold onX’s feet and the community’s feet to the fire so to speak while the second wasn’t so detailed.

Did I miss something, Matthew?

You missed that your details would not be appreciated by the group empowered specifically to keep climbing areas open. Your solution is not a solution, simply a bigger problem. It'd be the same as you saying you want to keep out drones so they don't shut down climbing, by just shutting down the climbing so the drones have no reason to be there. 

---

And to the rando capitalized letters... I always assumed it was making fun of some QAnon "secret message" stuff, but that was just a random guess, and it only seemed to fit that idea like 2% of the time. Seems like I was closer than I thought though, Lol. Thanks for the extra details!

I think this is a terrible idea. How do you know that a particular image was taken by a drone unless someone labels it as such?

Let's use the pearl clutching about "Free Solo" as a entry point. Lots of images from that movie look like drone footage but were shot by people jugging lines. My informed understanding is that the only drone shots in that movie are from the footage in Morocco of Alex, and none were used in Yosemite, for obvious reasons that Jimmy is a long-time Yosemite climber who knows not to do that and has a reputation to uphold. But, yeah, let's make it so any clown hitting a button "report illegal images" can make this shot disappear. 

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

You missed that your details would not be appreciated by the group empowered specifically to keep climbing areas open.  

I didn't miss that.  I simply don't think that is what they would say / think in the call you suggested I make.

I'm familiar with the Access Fund.  I have seen them engage in a local access issue.  To their credit, I felt they brought an objective, legal perspective which mainly guided the climbing community in their response about an incident involving power drills in a wilderness.

The AF really couldn't help the individuals who had broken the law.  And they certainly did not say anything to the community like "If you see someone using power drills in the wilderness, we will not appreciate it if you report it to the land owners / managers."

Your solution is not a solution, simply a bigger problem. It'd be the same as you saying you want to keep out drones so they don't shut down climbing, by just shutting down the climbing so the drones have no reason to be there. 

My solution was for onX to enable removal of those illegal photos.  And to hold onX's feet to the fire by bringing in land managers.

Letting stuff like this slide by carries as much or greater risk down the road compared to the engagement I suggested.  We’re Not avoiding it by Not talking to onX or the land managers.  We're creating the potential to experience the mother-of-all problems.  

In the above experience with AF, we nearly lost the legal right to hand drill in a local wilderness.  That was because a part of the climbing community (the guilty party) initially refused to accept the offer from the land managers to improve / support climber education.  Fortunately, the rest of the community rallied, the guilty party came back into the fold, and effort was taken by the community to get the word out about power drilling.

When this "mother-of-all problems" eventually gets triggered, onX isn't going to suffer much - they'll just change their process.  It is climbers (and other individuals) who will lose the most.

Bill Lawrywrote:

My solution was for onX to enable removal of those illegal photos.  And to hold onX's feet to the fire by bringing in land managers.

Bill, with all respect, I think you're missing a point. A photo isn't "illegal." Flying a drone in a national park is illegal. But possession of distribution of a photo taken by an illegally flying drone is no more "illegal" than a photo taken from a car parked in a red zone. I get your point, that utilizing these photos may encourage or reward the illegal use of drones, but your "solution" creates just as many issues as it attempts to solve. 

Andrew Ricewrote:

Bill, with all respect, I think you're missing a point. A photo isn't "illegal." Flying a drone in a national park is illegal. But possession of distribution of a photo taken by an illegally flying drone is no more "illegal" than a photo taken from a car parked in a red zone. I get your point, that utilizing these photos may encourage or reward the illegal use of drones, but your "solution" creates just as many issues as it attempts to solve. 

Sounds logical... 

So why post here?

Andrew Ricewrote:

Bill, with all respect, I think you're missing a point. A photo isn't "illegal." Flying a drone in a national park is illegal. But possession of distribution of a photo taken by an illegally flying drone is no more "illegal" than a photo taken from a car parked in a red zone. I get your point, that utilizing these photos may encourage or reward the illegal use of drones, but your "solution" creates just as many issues as it attempts to solve. 

I may be missing a point or three or four   I’m no lawyer.

Still, while I’d agree that a photo may itself not be “illegal”, the use of some categories of photos can be.   Wasn’t copyright infringements the nuisance that visited Super Topo during its last gasps? The photos themselves were not even “illegally” taken.

More likely, the crux is tying the evidence the photo provides of something illegal to a person is hard. Even if one can’t prove that, why just look the other way when a flag-hide-evaluate process is easy to implement.  Just the last automatic bit is missing.

x15x15wrote:

Sounds logical... 

So why post here?

Solid point. 

Bill Lawrywrote:

I may be missing a point or three or four   I’m no lawyer.

Still, while I’d agree that a photo may itself not be “illegal”, the use of some categories of photos can be.   Wasn’t copyright infringements the nuisance that visited Super Topo during its last gasps? The photos themselves were not even “illegally” taken.

More likely, the crux is tying the evidence the photo provides of something illegal to a person is hard. Even if one can’t prove that, why just look the other way when a flag-hide-evaluate process is easy to implement.  Just the last automatic bit is missing.

No one mentioned just looking the other way, theres a way to resolve things without pissing off the land owners/managers, which was your suggestion. Why not contact the person directly? Thats the obvious first step. 

The only thing I hate more than drones and their operators is when one of them starts a "wildlife photo business" which consists of harassing wild creatures in their natural environment for likes and future cash from print sales. That and whiny millenial types whose parents told them they were extra special too many times, possibly the same people.

John Tex wrote:

Funny, the last two times I was stalked by a drone it was a boomer. And the one time I cracked it with a rock, he sure was whiny, much like the boomer here trying to run and tattle on land managers. 

Cool so you agree that harassing wildlife with drones is cool eh? Maybe I hurt your millennial feelings and you are just acting out. God bless!

I went climbing today.

Bill Lawrywrote: I’m no lawyer.

Your name would suggest otherwise...

Bill Lawrywrote:

Suggest we identify them to affected  land managers who can take it up with onX.

Please slap yourself. 

John Tex wrote:

Umm, I said I cracked it with a rock. 

I don’t believe that at all… especially since that’s a felony. 

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

No one mentioned just looking the other way, theres a way to resolve things without pissing off the land owners/managers, which was your suggestion. Why not contact the person directly? Thats the obvious first step. 

True. It was my suggestion. Clearly, not many posting here think it appropriate.

My primary interest would be to crowd source via MP functionality.  I suspect it won’t happen without playing a little hard ball.