State Lawyers Getting Frisky
- Thread starter PatR
- Start date
They need to take care of the cell phone cinematographers first. As well as the distracted drivers talking and texting while behind the wheel.
I don’t think I’ve seen a report of “death by droning” as of yet.
I don’t think I’ve seen a report of “death by droning” as of yet.
As could most. I doubt any of that is at all related to privacy concerns or property rights. Sates look for any place they can to apply a tax, and using privacy/property concerns is another avenue for them to take in order to extract taxes in the form of fines and penalties against “offenders”. Not one penny of money collected in fines snd penalties ever makes it to those property rights or privacy was violated. Just like those multi-million and billion $ fines levied on banks and corporations, the people that get defrauded don’t get compensated, it all goes into government coffers.
This new planning is something we will all have to watch closely as imposition will not go to voters. It will be a legislative act done on the vote of government legislators in capitol chambers. The only way to have them vote no is by letting them know they will lose our votes come re-election time.
This new planning is something we will all have to watch closely as imposition will not go to voters. It will be a legislative act done on the vote of government legislators in capitol chambers. The only way to have them vote no is by letting them know they will lose our votes come re-election time.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 894
- Reaction score
- 387
Politicians are beginning to control every aspect of our lives. They're already taxing toilet flushing. California doesn't allow many places to collect rain water so they can tax Californians for it and then wonder why water is becoming a scarcity! When you hear "I'm from the government and I'm hear to help" take cover and run.
I was just thinking. A land owner owns the land that they have because presumably, they have at some point bought and paid for it? They will probably have a deed of ownership to their land somewhere. Does this then mean, that a land owner will have to purchase the airspace that exists above their land up to an as yet unspecified altitude if they want any rights over it? Because, as far as I am aware, airspace belongs to no-one (that's why manned aircraft can fly over your house if they want to) but is regulated by any given countries aviation authority?
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
Taking that further, if the FAA is a government body and the government is funded by the taxpayer, then the taxpayer owns it??
Indeed. They regulate it but as FlushVision has said, the taxpayers are the people that fund the regulator. So in a sense, the taxpayer owns it? Well not really, you only own it if you've paid for it. Let me elaborate. A long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away - I decided to buy a house, the house that I live in today. I paid an extortionate amount of money and interest to enable that but the upshot is, now, 20 odd years later, it is mine. I have the deeds to it, which clearly show what I own. This includes the boundaries of which I own and something about owning what's underneath my property down to s depth of 6ft. So presumably, if I dig down and strike gold at 7ft down, then I have no rights to it?! It says nothing about owning the airspace anywhere above it and I'm willing to bet that no deeds will say that anywhere? That's because I/we don't own it! And if you could purchase the airspace above your property, who do you buy it from? I'd really like to know who actually has the deeds to all the airspace!
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
Indeed. In the real world no-one can claim to 'own' the airspace over their property...certainly not above any height that they can reasonable use. That space above the height that can be reasonably used by the landowner can be 'regulated' by that country's regulatory authority, but the regulator doesn't actually 'own' it. A country will claim airspace for military purposes and will defend their airspace against intruders so regulating that airspace in that fashion...but does that country 'own' that airspace? For the invading fighter jet that has just been shot down the pilot would probably say a resounding 'yes', but would he be technically right in that assertion? This is in the bounds of international law and is well above my pay grade.
I defer to people with better knowledge than I.
Yes a country will defend their airspace (and rightly so) but defend that airspace insomuch as the airspace that you regulate and within the boundaries of such. I think a country could reasonably claim that it is their airspace because it is the airspace that is above it. And there's the rub, the country owns the airspace and that means it's owned by every single person that resides there. Not a single piece of it at a single point but all of it - by definition it is (for example) UK airspace.
In the USA, the FCC regulates (i.e. controls, has dominion over, etc) the airspace over everyone's private property that has not been classified as "private airspace" or "military airspace"
for purposes of commercial passenger, medical, Law Enforcement, and cargo transporting air traffic.
When you get into "yeah well it's owned by the government and we the people own the government so everything is The People's", you not only open the door to "I can fly my drone over
your property and film you and your family", you take it off the hinges and knock out the door frame.
There is no such thing as "free airspace", and there doesn't need to be. Americans have a Constitutional Right to privacy, especially within the physical boundaries of their owned property,
and that covers the airspace over their property, at least in regards to individual pho/cinematography.
You are not allowed to film your neighbor with your drone without their written consent. Sorry if you bought a flying camera while living in the 'burbs, but my right to privacy is not up for
debate, and doesn't end just because someone spent money.
And yes, if your deed states a limit of 6 feet, and you strike gold at 7ft, you don't own the gold. Whoever wrote that clause into the law should be evicted from this country, along with everyone
related to/descended from them, and that clause banned in all 50 States because striking it rich on your own property was supposed to be one of those Rights we killed our English overlords about.
for purposes of commercial passenger, medical, Law Enforcement, and cargo transporting air traffic.
When you get into "yeah well it's owned by the government and we the people own the government so everything is The People's", you not only open the door to "I can fly my drone over
your property and film you and your family", you take it off the hinges and knock out the door frame.
There is no such thing as "free airspace", and there doesn't need to be. Americans have a Constitutional Right to privacy, especially within the physical boundaries of their owned property,
and that covers the airspace over their property, at least in regards to individual pho/cinematography.
You are not allowed to film your neighbor with your drone without their written consent. Sorry if you bought a flying camera while living in the 'burbs, but my right to privacy is not up for
debate, and doesn't end just because someone spent money.
And yes, if your deed states a limit of 6 feet, and you strike gold at 7ft, you don't own the gold. Whoever wrote that clause into the law should be evicted from this country, along with everyone
related to/descended from them, and that clause banned in all 50 States because striking it rich on your own property was supposed to be one of those Rights we killed our English overlords about.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 894
- Reaction score
- 387
I'm not a fan of the gov't interfering in any of my life. With that said is it an offense if I have my camera pointed at their house, land or those on/in that property?
Can you sue for this invasion? Will the courts hear this suit? If you film your child's birthday party in the back yard and film the neighbors are you breaking a law? How exactly is privacy defined?
Indeed. As do we here in the UK. You have the right to privacy in your own home but not in a public space. That's why there's cctv everywhere. At present the law in the UK regarding drones already covers this. You are not allowed to fly a drone within 150 metres (450ft) of any person, vessel or property without their permission (under your control) if you are an amateur flyer. If you are a professional flyer (part 107 or whatever you call it in the states) that distance is reduced to 50 metres (150ft) so it's still quite a distance. No need for any weird airspace laws. Just think, if a property owner really did own the airspace above their property, what about all the people that live near major airports and have aircraft flying over their property every 60 seconds or so. Surely you'd be able to say no, you can't fly your aircraft over my property, go and move you major airport somewhere else! That's what this thread is about (aerial trespass) or a proposed law on aerial trespass not privacy. I think privacy and drones has already been done to death in many other threads, the conclusion being most prosumer drones don't have cameras capable of collecting images of any recognition unless the drone was virtually about 10 feet away!
Er, sorry to contradict you, but no that is incorrect. Recreational flyers are allowed to fly down to 50m of people and property, and 30m when landing or launching. The 150m rule applies to congested areas and crowds.
FlushVision
Premium Pilot
And you can fly right up to a person or property if they are under the control of the pilot. I flew within feet of a group of walkers last Sunday but I also made sure that they had all signed a form stating that they were under my control.
First I’d like to comment on another post referencing a “Constitutional right to privacy”. That is in fact not true as nothing in the U.S. Constitution guarantees or grants such a right. Any privacy rights our citizens have are awarded under state laws and not all states provide for privacy rights. Also, our airspace is governed via regulation, and in effect owned, by the FAA, not the FCC.
“Privacy” is a word with many dimensions and for this discussion we should limit those dimensions to navigable airspace, personal use airspace, private property, and imagery. For now imagery of persons and property is on the table.
People have imagery privacy that courts will enforce under various copyright law definitions. We cannot publish a photo or video of someone else without their express permission, unless that image was obtained in a setting where the individual(s) had “no reasonable expectation of privacy”. A public event, or newsworthy activity occurring in a public, open location would not violate personal privacy if filmed and published as long as the imagery was published as “public interest” and not used for revenue generating purposes. If they were in their yard, inside their home, or other location where a reasonable level of privacy was maintained we can be sued for damages if we film and publish images of them. If we film personal property, such as a home, business, or items directly associated with private ownership we also must obtain permission to publish as property is covered under copyright law. Those shooting real estate need to exercise care as capturing and publishing the house or car next door to the intended subject violates the neighbors copyright protection.
California has an “anti-paparazzi” law that prohibits the use of a camera to capture imagery of people in the confines of their property. Published or not that law allows for civil prosecution of anyone filming people and their activities without their permission. Under civil code section 1708.8(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal,or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.” It goes on considerably from there but the published fine structure runs from $5,000.00 to $50,000.00. As California provides privacy rights to its citizens they have the ability to enact and enforce privacy laws in addition to any personal copyrights we all have. Other states have similar privacy laws where those states provide privacy rights to their citizens. Oregon is one, and I believe Washington is another. We should note that police agencies are largely exempted from privacy laws except where unreasonable search and seizure comes into play, which is an area being heavily contested in our courts right now.
Ultimately, privacy and copyrights can overlap each other and create a legal morass for both the casual and professional aerial photographer. Nobody is legally responsible to teach or inform photographers of these laws, it’s completely on the photographer to research the laws governing their shoot location and understand them well enough to comply. After that we get to contend with all the other laws and regulations enacted to cover other government agency activities, emergency responders, state roads and highways, and everything else that creates the legal minefields we have to tread.
So, yes, courts can prosecute for privacy violations. And much, much more, but our Constitution does not provide a right to privacy.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 894
- Reaction score
- 387
So if you shoot an image of a home for realty and the house next door is the house protected in some states? If you can see the neighbor in the shot mowing but his face is not distinguishable is that a violation? Isn't the intent the point? If you didn't see the mower and he's not identifiable is that a violation?
This all gets extremely dicey for me. You can sue for being dumb enough to put a hot cup of coffee in your crotch going through the drive through. Now the fast food restaurants have to put a disclaimer on the cups. Don't poor hot liquids on your genitals. Where does common sense cease to exist and the gov't awards those worthy of the Darwin award?
This all gets extremely dicey for me. You can sue for being dumb enough to put a hot cup of coffee in your crotch going through the drive through. Now the fast food restaurants have to put a disclaimer on the cups. Don't poor hot liquids on your genitals. Where does common sense cease to exist and the gov't awards those worthy of the Darwin award?
Similar threads
