All above are great advice and legal pointers, all discuss the FAA jurisdiction which is all advice to follow to avoid problems, and the other common rule to apply is to have these discussions with law enforcement in a non-challenging, calm, respectful manner. The PSC (police street court) will normally always favor the one maintaining control and if felt unjust, pursuing a legal challenge should be applied later without announcing it as a threat; telling police and the surrounding neighborhood the legal action tactic doesn't normal favor your case. I've often found when police show up, after a short discussion with both parties the officer will often reproach me with questions and friendly discussions. Let the neighbor bury himself, the more rational & calm you present, he'll get worse and end up having the officer work in your favor.
The argument of private property & air space with a "drone" hasn't really been "challenged" in a Court as of yet, specially to a point where it can be used as precedent or to argue local or state laws. Although, the cases sited above and an additional ruling by the Supreme Court stating there is "no expectation of privacy in your back yard". Many of these privacy cases were filed against Government and Law Enforcement Agencies and their surveillance; all used one form or another of challenging privacy & trespassing. Some included aerial in low altitude: Pole Climber, Tall structures, and Aerial fly over. I wasn't able to locate any ruling that favored the Defendent (property owner / company) winning an aerial drone trespassing case.
The comment above on maximum property altitude has many variations beginning with the WWII landing path case ruling and several other examples. The one that normally informally wins with PSC at location (avoiding court files, and discouraged), and the lower courts is "practical common sense" indicating the "tallest structure" (not tree or antenna) asset on property, and some have applied up to 10-15 feet above: Exp: Roof and person performing work on roof, the "working zone" is included in many common sense findings. This isn't to be spread to open land, such as Ag Farm, the silo height applies to the operation center, not the open land of fields. I personally find while in 2 story structure areas, if maintaining 50-100 feet above roof or 50-100 feet above multistory residential you're not often challenged by police, but I'll also indicate I'll take all action to reduce any unnecessary flight over the complaining neighbor's property.
All the above can be challenged in Court, and assumed will continued to be challenged. With the recent changes being introduced with FAA regulations and specific sections applying to RC Aircraft that are entertaining "legal representatives" for the FAA may soon include federal, local or state representative. The details or the subsequent court challenges haven't formulated as of current to understand the substance it will include when the dust of the legal pen settles into legal documents.
I'm not sure of your RC status (PT107 Commercial, Hobbyist) and in this discussion of "Trespassing / Privacy" is not applicable because the major differential factor is "generated income" and I didn't read you were working for fee. It's often stated if you have your PT107, you have "this & that" rights or legal passage. In all practicality, the Hobbyist has (currently) the widest latitude in legal allowances compared to the PT107 exercising as a Commercial Fee project. Although, as a PT107 if you can prove or verify prior to flight you were performing as a "Hobbyist' a PT107 also has the additional latitude as operating as a Hobbyist. Actually, if not needed under current regulations I wouldn't pursue a PT107 certification for pleasure flying.
The PT107 has more legal challenges to defend based on their perceived greater understanding of the regulations. A prosecutor enjoys a professional or certified defendant, more substance to challenge if you're being charged with a matter that isn't clearly in your favor... such as the above trespassing related charges if pursued in court. I personally know several lawyers, law enforcement, marshals, etc that fly as Hobbyist due to the wider legal latitude. One example is night flying for fireworks... PT107 requires a night waiver, Hobbyist needs to notify local tower of intentions.
You have the right to fly the sky as long as you're not violating any applicable legal code, and currently that pretty much includes any airspace not in an FAA NFZ and attitudes, maintaining minimal airspace above property, and any state or local rules that might "indirectly" apply even though they could be challenged (noise, wildlife, etc) it's not worth the expense & time compared to avoiding the point of complaint. Although, as PatR suggests... don't provide material that can be used as evidence.
If you know you're filming a wide FOV from 200' show it if you feel the need. If you unknowingly during a warm-up hover & making RC settings positioned in your yard and your camera was pointed to neighbor's windows or suntanning deck at 35' AGL... that might sting a bit! I'd also suggest never to offer flight logs as proof until challenged in court, they could be used against you. My personal method, I often take a few stills of the distant landscape, clouds, etc... and will show those as a gesture of peace and to verify my altitude and position. I won't offer video, often just say I'm taking stills or testing a flight pattern.
Enjoy the flights in warm FL temps! It's 5 F degrees with -15 F Wind chill and snow here... such pretty snow!
