Requesting help from you experienced folks on some regulations
- Thread starter Santa
- Start date
That's interesting... something driven by higher populated regions. Not sure smaller mid-west cities would extend that authority to Company Security services.
This is only as a result of drone landing / crashing on property correct? There isn't any trespassing if manages to successfully remain in the air and land outside property boundaries.
This isn't a temporary NFZ, so open skies.
Doesn't the company need to have a LEO agreement, granted by local governing body, basically granting Companie's security to issue fines within the construct of local laws. They aren't able to impose their own governing body and laws, and their Security officers are under the same scrutiny as LEO's in proper issuance & procedures.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 661
No one is arguing. Within the compounds of the site you are not to trespass. The skies are open, don’t crash inside the pits. Security officers can detain until LEO gets to the scene. The policy is common sense.
Mortenson Las Vegas Raiders stadium build. You cannot fly within two block radius, not over the pit if you do not have permission and they do not have regular security, but the Las Vegas PD. And yes Mortenson/Mc Carthy owns the sky and land on their Las Vegas Raiders Stadium build. [emoji23]
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 661
NFZ imposed in the strip. It was a headache, when I got there.. I had to physically go to the McCarran Int. Airport to get another extra waiver signed.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 661
Yo! It’s nuts!
I heard stories on the operators that worked on the Sales Force building in SF. They had a no drone zone, because other drones from wanna be operators was getting the action and it made hard for the real operators to conduct their mission.
And SFPD was proactive in implementing this.
There’s an app that gives part 107 operators jobs, but its shady, there’s a lot of weekend flyers here in San Francisco and some all retired early. Like the one who crash and almost hitting a woman and her child. And the even was captured in the local news.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Doug,
The area would have to have been issued a TFR as the FAA does not create NFZ’s. If the property just had a NOTAM without reference to a TFR flight in that airspace would be legal.
Landing, taking off, or physically encroaching private property will cause legal violations, but those have to be imposed by an officer of the court/law. A private citizen, which includes most security guards, can make a citizen’s arrest but that puts them in a lot of civil jeopardy. Should they choose to physically restrain someone until legal authorities arrived that jeopardy would increase exponentially.
Bottom line, the FAA still owns the air, not private businesses or homeowners any higher than they can reasonably use. Good manners would have people respecting the airspace over private property but often that’s not the way it is. Here in CA there’s nothing I’ve found in published law that prohibits photographing private property that is devoid of people. If people are present on that property a prohibition against photographing them and their activities goes into play.
The area would have to have been issued a TFR as the FAA does not create NFZ’s. If the property just had a NOTAM without reference to a TFR flight in that airspace would be legal.
Landing, taking off, or physically encroaching private property will cause legal violations, but those have to be imposed by an officer of the court/law. A private citizen, which includes most security guards, can make a citizen’s arrest but that puts them in a lot of civil jeopardy. Should they choose to physically restrain someone until legal authorities arrived that jeopardy would increase exponentially.
Bottom line, the FAA still owns the air, not private businesses or homeowners any higher than they can reasonably use. Good manners would have people respecting the airspace over private property but often that’s not the way it is. Here in CA there’s nothing I’ve found in published law that prohibits photographing private property that is devoid of people. If people are present on that property a prohibition against photographing them and their activities goes into play.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 661
What Pat says.. and absolutely no private planes and helicopters, except for the Raiders media, PD Heli, and I guess the owners can fly through and over the Mortenson/Mc Carthy build in Las Vegas. They also have not allowed the goggle helicopters to map the area. This site is really strict. My first time to see so much security, and restrictions.
Misspoke in hast between errand stops... yes, meant TFR... I often refer to it as a Temp NFZ. You are correct and understandable a stadium would have a TFR.
No question on whom owns the air... think that was other post in thread.
Totally agree on security service & risk of legal action. I was wondering if some agreement was established when inquired on authority and governing body and would be under same scrutiny as LEO. Restraining can be allowed in some instances, a psuedo Deputy status for Security Sevice if criteria meet... which is not often. I too questioned the restraining, a good defense would have a good time with forced restraining by security service... but didn't know the circumstances for this City Governance and allowances... of all cities, this could be one that exercised additional latitude.
I don't think private property and aerial trespassing has been technically challenged, thus private property photography I would assume included. Very Interesting, Didn't know CA had a prohibition over populated property... is that due to celebrities? Has that been challenged... filming vs fly over say for 3D terrain modeling. That could broach into airspace rights is what I was pondering. Agree, being polite would prevent any issues... and airspace in my area is considered 20-30 feet above your highest structure's roof line.
Last edited:
In the land of Oz the iniitially real estate photography was considered a commercial activity. The federal regulator (after much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the real estate industry lobbiest's) decided that real estate photographers did not need to be licenced to use drones for commercial real estate photography. Not a good result.
Phaedrus
Premium Pilot
This is the law in California that has been used against some drone operators. It is referred to as the paparazzi law.
codes.findlaw.com
California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 1708.8 | FindLaw
California Civil Code CIV CA CIVIL Section 1708.8. Read the code on FindLaw
codes.findlaw.com
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2017
- Messages
- 4,258
- Reaction score
- 2,025
PatR
Premium Pilot
Phaedrus
Premium Pilot
Can't recall either. But this is likely what they would use in this state. The bottom line is don't be "that guy". I tend to use the approach of asking myself if I looked up and saw my drone how P!$$&d off would I be?
That’s what I assumed, paparazzi & celebrities motivated.This is the law in California that has been used against some drone operators. It is referred to as the paparazzi law.
California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 1708.8 | FindLaw
California Civil Code CIV CA CIVIL Section 1708.8. Read the code on FindLaw
From the law reference link, Sec a & b focus on key wording “in order to capture...” and “attempts to capture” person(s) on property, an action paparazzi would perform. Both these would require “subject” to be main or primary attention within video or photos to not be an easy argument. If this was an ocean beach property and someone flying a drone up beach to capture scenery, ocean, landscape and flew over occupied property. Or if residential area and flying a wide angle shot of neighboring home for realty; neither would fall under the above section.
The challenge directed to include aerial is the additional verbiage in sec b “regardless of whether there is a physical trespass...” suggests telephoto lens from a distance. High perch, helicopter, drone, etc.
The argument to prove is knowingly enters, and for purpose to capture human subjects on property. The LEO depending on area might over react in celebrity neighborhoods and more relaxed in common neighborhoods. Both could be a legal challenge to prove intent vs unintentional capture.
Being CA, I’d assume there’s Attorneys specializing in Paparazzi offensives.. like medical malpractice (aka ambulance chasers) specialist in most states.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2019
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 661
This is the law in California that has been used against some drone operators. It is referred to as the paparazzi law.
California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 1708.8 | FindLaw
California Civil Code CIV CA CIVIL Section 1708.8. Read the code on FindLaw
That law changed the game of drones...
This is the law in California that has been used against some drone operators. It is referred to as the paparazzi law.
California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 1708.8 | FindLaw
California Civil Code CIV CA CIVIL Section 1708.8. Read the code on FindLaw
Have they fined or arrested drone pilots? You indicate used against drone operators? Was there an outcome or bench ruling? I do recall helicopters and people taking tail numbers on a few paparazzi cases... but don’t recall the outcome.
Similar threads
