Welcome to YuneecPilots.com!

Sign up and join the fastest growing Yuneec drone community.

  1. Tony2016

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    3
    Yesterday I was flying the H over a lake in a public park within a residential neighborhood. A passer-by made some snarky comments about me violating people's privacy. He was jerk about it. I didn't want to get into a discussion with him because he looks like one of the guys how would get angry and worst case might break the drone! There are some homes very close to the lake and I try to avoid flying over people and the drone is pretty high up even sometimes at the max of 400 feet.

    What do you guys do or say if you encounter a similar situation or if someone comes towards you asking you not to fly the drone or stop any kind of recording? You're in a public park not flying over anyone or if someone claims he lives near by.

    What are our rights?
     
  2. Eric

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2016
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    278
    in France, we don't have the right to fly over a populated area. an administrative authorization is required.
    As a photographer (not taking about drone), I have the right to shoot people on a public area, but if someone come to me and tell me not to shoot him, I must stop, it's the law.
     
  3. PatR

    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,046
    Likes Received:
    428
    Location:
    Columbia Gorge
    Anyone involved in activities in a public has no reasonable expectation of privacy. They do, however, maintain rights to any use of imagery depicting their activities. You should not use such imagery without permission, especially if used for financial gain. Courtesy suggests that if someone indicates they are bothered by your aerial activities you cease the portion of the aerial activity that involves that individual(s). Should you choose to take a hand held camera out at that point to demonstrate they still lack a reasonable expectation of privacy you would be within your rights but risk a broken nose.

    If someone is objecting just because they don't like the type of activity you have a different issue and have to decide how far you want to push it. If you are operating safely and legally, the person objecting is a 98lb weakling, and you're a Sumo wrestler, the decision is pretty easy but if the size disparity is reversed you might want to think differently.

    It all comes down to courtesy really. If someone objects and is within reason, just don't. Treat people like you want to be treated, and show the same respect you require.
     
  4. Hoss

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2016
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    22
    Review your state laws.
     
  5. Rayray

    Rayray Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    392
    Location:
    Pine Forests of Deep East Texas
    I agree. If your Superman cape doesn't get respect, better give it up, try another locale.
     
  6. Hal

    Hal

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2016
    Messages:
    198
    Likes Received:
    54
    Seems some local towns are getting ready to set up restrictions… Pilots like this are just asking for ordinances to be put into place--- One could think that they are nearly stalking this resident's property.

    Franklin Lakes mayor sees need to limit drone operations - Town Government - NorthJersey.com


    Franklin Lakes – A complaint by a resident alleging invasion of privacy by a drone said to be hovering near the resident’s property several nights in a row has changed the mayor’s mind about the need for a local ordinance restricting drone use.

    Mayor Frank Bivona said the resident called the police and officers were able to track the drone as far as Wyckoff before losing it. He said that while previously he felt drones were more of a public safety problem, he now realizes they pose a privacy concern to residents.

    "We have a [drone] privacy issue right here in our town," Bivona said. "This is a real issue now, confirmed by our police."

    Borough Administrator Gregory Hart said he was told that "imminent" federal legislation may address the non-commercial uses of drones, though it was unclear whether the legislation would address privacy concerns.

    Given the privacy concerns associated with uncontrolled drone use, Bivona said he agreed to wait for federal legislation, but that ultimately, the problem might be addressed by updating an existing ordinance with as little as one sentence.

    " ‘You cannot fly drones over someone’s property without permission,’ " he said.

    Councilwoman Ann Swist mentioned Allendale’s ordinance restricting drones that municipality’s governing body adopted in April. The ordinance prohibits drones and remotely controlled aircraft from flying in airspace below 400 feet over residences, commercial zones, public roads, buildings and parks.

    Councilman Joseph Kelly suggested one option might be an ordinance limiting drone use to a large area such as the borough's new 84-acre Parsons Pond Park, while other council members preferred to wait and research the issue.

    "We don’t want a ‘drone-ville’ there," Bivona said of such a limitation. "This scares me a little bit, that it’s being used for nefarious reasons."

    Swist and Councilman Charles Kahwaty noted that real estate agents are required to obtain permission from property owners before flying a drone overhead. Councilman Joseph Cadicina urged the council to restrict air space over public property.

    At Bivona’s request, both Hart and borough attorney William Smith said they would research what might be done to protect residents’ privacy from drones. Hart said he hoped both would present research for discussion at the July 5 council work session.

    And here is the follow up article from last week…..

    Franklin Lakes – The Borough Council has introduced an ordinance to limit the operation of drones in public and private airspace below 500 feet.

    A public hearing will be held Aug. 16.

    The ordinance comes in response to reports of a drone hovering near a resident’s property several nights in a row. Council members have discussed the issue at several public meetings.

    "This is a good first step," said Mayor Frank Bivona. "It’s not a ban, but there are regulations."

    Councilman Charles Kahwaty said Borough Administrator Gregory Hart did a "wonderful job" drafting the ordinance but with electronic devices being "miniaturized to such an extent," he said the ordinance is likely to soon need updating.

    The ordinance states that drones may not be operated in any airspace below 500 feet over private property without the owner’s permission and over any borough street or building without permission from the mayor and council between dawn and dusk, or over persons within 100 feet of where the drone is being operated.

    Exceptions include any governmental or law enforcement agency, individuals or entities operating a drone with permission for commercial purposes, or the lawful and authorized operation of drones for "commercial, business, educational, scientific, research, environmental, and personal purposes."

    Hart said via email that since no specific penalties are detailed, violators of the ordinance would be subject to the general penalty provision of borough code. That provision calls for, upon conviction, "imprisonment in the county jail…for any term not exceeding 90 days or by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or by a period of community service not exceeding 90 days."

    Council members had waited to determine whether a recent Federal Aviation Administration ruling would address non-commercial drone use. However, borough attorney William Smith said that while that ruling addressed safety issues, privacy concerns were left up to municipal officials to decide.

    In June, members discussed a resident’s complaint of a drone hovering around her home for several consecutive nights. Police attempted to follow the drone but lost it somewhere near the Wyckoff border. At Bivona’s urging, Hart and Smith researched options to protect residents’ privacy.
     
  7. FlushVision

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2016
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    52
    Last week I was flying a Phantom 2 Vision Plus (the Typhoon was having a rest) on a beach completely within the law for the U.K. and in an area strewn with jagged rocks where no-one dared to tread.

    Presently, a woman appeared from some way away shouting about how annoying it was (turned out she'd been sitting in a car on a car-park several hundred feet away).

    I was coming to the end of my last battery and was about to land anyway but if I'd have had another battery I would have carried on and ignored her since not only was I flying within the U.K. law, I was WELL within the law (and I know the law concerning drones in the U.K.)

    Some folk have a thing against drones no matter how well they are flown within the law. Best to ignore them unless, of course, they are bigger than you.
     
  8. PatR

    Joined:
    May 1, 2016
    Messages:
    1,046
    Likes Received:
    428
    Location:
    Columbia Gorge
    If you see her again let her know her government is now using drones to kill people so perhaps her complaints would be better served in delivering them to people that cause real harm.

    As for privacy in the UK, there's not too many places your not already being filmed. From multiple angles.