There is an embedded image (there may be more than one) that is exactly the same.

Why take the time to produce an image identical to one that already exists. RAW files do have an embedded jpeg for previewing.

The raw sensor data cannot be viewed directly, so any image viewer that appears to show it to you is actually showing the embedded preview jpeg image. That of course is exactly the same jpeg as the camera outputs as a jpeg file.

They appear to be exactly the same because they are exactly the same!

You don't understand the American legal system. One side prevails and the other does not, but in no way does that mean one lawyer was wrong. A lawyer protects the client. That means no death penalty for an assault! If you don't think that is a successful lawyer, represent yourself in court against a lawyer some day.

Total BS.

I have dozens if not hundreds on minor children on my web page. Some have been there 20 years now.

AWACS planes spot, track, and control aircraft. They don't track enemy ICBMs, though they may control our own ICBMs.

Neat planes. I've talked to Alaskan bush pilots that have tried playing cat and mouse, using standard transponders, with AWACS aircraft. They say you can't hide...

Actually you can probably sell such photographs to just about anyone, exactly the same as any other picture. That changes for "commercial" use.

That claim has been debunked several times on UHH, and never seems to show up anywhere else.

No such law has yet been found.

But you are engaging in a discussion that clearly is about US law, and we can assume you meant what applies if you come to the US. Otherwise you should have stated that you were changing the subject, as we all know there are hundreds of different jurisdictions.

However, despite all that, even though I cannot cite specific legal basis for law in the UK I am willing to bet that in this case it is virtually identical to US law. Show us specifics if you wish to claim otherwise (because what you have stated does not make any sense in context, which is to say the UK is not a moslem country).

(Edit: A seach of photography law in the UK verifies you are absolutely wrong. Granted that UK law has some quirks that can be misunderstood though.)

Wonderful, because that shows no disrespect

But you claimed nobody has a right to take your picture and post it online. That is, according the US Supreme Court, a constitutionally protected right. Your statement is ultimately disrespectful and very self centered.

Yes respect is very important. You should continue to follow this thread and others on the same topic.

You are the one lacking respect. The public, over time and though application of law, determines the general direction of how we as a people view morality and a general concept of respect for others.

You seem to be extremely self centered. And in that respect lacking in appropriate respect for the rights of others in contrast to what you see as your own personal priviledges.

You might be a lot of things, but I have every right to photograph you or anyone from a public place if you are in plain view and have no right to privacy.

If you are, for example, standing in your driveway I can photograph you from a sidewalk 5 feet away or 500 yards away.

Those photographs can normally be posted to any non-commercial media.

You have no right to privacy if standing where you are visible from public property.

That is true of statutory law, but only because it is impossible to foresee all possible circumstance. And that is why we have courts.

Any conflict that arrises is adjudicated by the court, the perceived vagueness is removed by ensueing case law.

Any statutory law that is originally too general will necessarilly evolve to being very specific.

These, as well as all of the following examples, are false representations.

None of those are "public property" in the sense that the public is allowed free access such as is true of every sidewalk next to a public roadway. All of them will be clearly marked where public access ceases. And every single one of those places can be photographed from any public place.

I have, for decades, freely photographed dozens of militsry bases and airports. Also at least two nuclear plants. All with no trouble at all.

That is an abzurd statement because there is no such right. Nor even perceived priviledge.

If you don't want to be photographed to not frequent public places. Build suitable walls between public areas and your private property. Visit only places that are private and provide for you privacy.

It is not the photographer's responsibility to provide for your comfort.