DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Had my first semi "confrontation"

I'm a REALTOR and drone pilot and get lots of questions about drones.
Who owns that air space about my home and in my neighborhood?
Can I shoot it down?
Invasion of privacy...yada...yada...yada.
In Texas, homeowners don't own any mineral rights below them, much less the air space above them.
Too bad that ignorance isn't painful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chazzm
Another officer getting a free education of what is public property...

at 2:50

HTML:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7Y0zd3BbXM&t=2m50s
 
I was drone flying a couple weeks ago when a police car drove up next to me. The officer cautiously got out of his car and walked up to me with the question "What are you doing?". At that point, I went into my standard Public Ambassador, "friendly" mode.

"I'm taking scenic videos of the town for publication on YouTube. Come look over my shoulder at the monitor!".

At that point, the frown on the officer's face melted away, as he became interested in the images on the screen. -Then the questions about drones, followed by an explanation of what I was doing and why. He asked the standard "How much do they cost", and "Are they hard to fly" questions. As I finished my shoot and brought the drone back for a landing, I pattered on about the controls and the sport itself. When we were close, I even let him press the return-to-home auto-land button. That did it! He was a convert.

After landing, we talked about the legality and safety features of the sport. I explained about part 107, and the steps that the FAA is taking to regulate and keep everything safe. When he left, he thanked me for allowing him to fly. In my mind though, I'd made another convert. The encounter could've gone quite differently.

So how do we handle ourselves with the public? How do we address common fears about the unknown? How do we handle the occasional nutcase?

1. I have predetermined responses to the standard questions, like the one mentioned earlier about photography. When asked if I'm filming, my standard answer is yes, but with a panoramic, wide-angle lens. I then follow-up with "Have you ever looked through binoculars from the other end?". "You'll see things like you're a mile away. -That's what a panoramic lens does.". "That way I don't have to climb a mile high to get a scene.". "The downside is that I can't make out individual people.". That seems to quell any invasion of privacy concerns. I then (-may) invite the individual to look over my shoulder. -Involvement seems to disarm people most of the time.

2. If I DO get a nutcase (-Haven't had a real bad one yet) who doesn't respond to "ambassador tactics", I'll ask his permission to first land the drone so that I can give him my full attention. "-It's a safety issue", I'll say. Once on the ground, I'll listen to him (-or her) and try to ferret out the REAL concern. I try not to get confrontational, and always stay relaxed. -Same with my body language.

Restating the concern helps to put things into a solvable question. -The old Columbo approach.

"So help me understand you a little better. You're concerned that I may be photographing you and invading your privacy, is that it?". Then I'll address his concern. "I've just taken a beautiful picture of this entire bridge, but the people walking on it will look like ants if I can make them out at all.". "If I wanted to take a recognizable picture, I'd have to hover in your face at nose level, and that would bother both of us!". "Give me your email address and I'll send you a link to the footage.". "If you find something that bothers you, let me know and I'll either blur or delete it. Is that fair?".

So far, these tactics have worked, and the majority of the time I've made a friend.

Now, what are some of the tactics that YOU guys use?
 
I was drone flying a couple weeks ago when a police car drove up next to me. The officer cautiously got out of his car and walked up to me with the question "What are you doing?". At that point, I went into my standard Public Ambassador, "friendly" mode.

"I'm taking scenic videos of the town for publication on YouTube. Come look over my shoulder at the monitor!".

At that point, the frown on the officer's face melted away, as he became interested in the images on the screen. -Then the questions about drones, followed by an explanation of what I was doing and why. He asked the standard "How much do they cost", and "Are they hard to fly" questions. As I finished my shoot and brought the drone back for a landing, I pattered on about the controls and the sport itself. When we were close, I even let him press the return-to-home auto-land button. That did it! He was a convert.

After landing, we talked about the legality and safety features of the sport. I explained about part 107, and the steps that the FAA is taking to regulate and keep everything safe. When he left, he thanked me for allowing him to fly. In my mind though, I'd made another convert. The encounter could've gone quite differently.

So how do we handle ourselves with the public? How do we address common fears about the unknown? How do we handle the occasional nutcase?

1. I have predetermined responses to the standard questions, like the one mentioned earlier about photography. When asked if I'm filming, my standard answer is yes, but with a panoramic, wide-angle lens. I then follow-up with "Have you ever looked through binoculars from the other end?". "You'll see things like you're a mile away. -That's what a panoramic lens does.". "That way I don't have to climb a mile high to get a scene.". "The downside is that I can't make out individual people.". That seems to quell any invasion of privacy concerns. I then (-may) invite the individual to look over my shoulder. -Involvement seems to disarm people most of the time.

2. If I DO get a nutcase (-Haven't had a real bad one yet) who doesn't respond to "ambassador tactics", I'll ask his permission to first land the drone so that I can give him my full attention. "-It's a safety issue", I'll say. Once on the ground, I'll listen to him (-or her) and try to ferret out the REAL concern. I try not to get confrontational, and always stay relaxed. -Same with my body language.

Restating the concern helps to put things into a solvable question. -The old Columbo approach.

"So help me understand you a little better. You're concerned that I may be photographing you and invading your privacy, is that it?". Then I'll address his concern. "I've just taken a beautiful picture of this entire bridge, but the people walking on it will look like ants if I can make them out at all.". "If I wanted to take a recognizable picture, I'd have to hover in your face at nose level, and that would bother both of us!". "Give me your email address and I'll send you a link to the footage.". "If you find something that bothers you, let me know and I'll either blur or delete it. Is that fair?".

So far, these tactics have worked, and the majority of the time I've made a friend.

Now, what are some of the tactics that YOU guys use?
Well done. Engage vs confront. I spent a week in Italy. At first I was worried there might be issues, but when anybody had questions I spoke with them and showed them the gear. I even invited one young boy and his father to try the controls. People can be afraid of what they don't understand.
 
That's a great video, those guys are now fans.
 
I'm a REALTOR and drone pilot...In Texas, homeowners don't own any mineral rights below them, much less the air space above them...Too bad that ignorance isn't painful.

By law, a private property owner has ZERO right to any subsurface mineral in Texas? If that is true, then who owns all the minerals in Texas?
 
Regarding the legality of filming people in public, there seems to be some confusion in here between the rights of a journalist, professional non-journalist photographer, and amateur photographer. All have differing freedoms and restrictions. If you're selling your photos you absolutely need to be concerned with releases, whether or not people are recognizable, etc. As an amateur, I can walk down a sidewalk, point a big ol' dslr at someone's face, take a fully detailed photo with them as the subject, post it to my personal Facebook that night, and there's nothing they can do about it. There's even a whole genre of photography based on this. They also don't have the right to demand I delete photos of them, not that it would be possible anyway since I usually shoot on 35mm or medium format film. That said, courtesy is a thing and I choose to be much more respectful of people's wishes than that when I do street photography.
 
By law, a private property owner has ZERO right to any subsurface mineral in Texas? If that is true, then who owns all the minerals in Texas?
I'm guessing Texas owns it. Sounds like it should be BS, but it wouldn't surprise me. Some areas I believe have made it illegal to collect and use rainwater.
 
...No one has the reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place...This isn't North Korea...

Do you think its legal to take up the skirt photo/video so long as you are in a public place like this guy?

upload_2018-9-8_10-14-17.png
 
Do you think its legal to take up the skirt photo/video so long as you are in a public place like this guy?

reductio ad absurdum... Not the most persuasive of debate techniques. Kind of juvenile actually.

.......And a persons body beneath their clothes is NOT in the public domain and what you’re seeing there is an actual crime with severe penalties
 
  • Like
Reactions: GringoLoco
All the drone"issue", is about ignorance.

People are afraid of drones, because they don't know what they are and what they can do.

As other said, if we explain the use and the capability of a flying camera, fear disappears, and people are interested in this new mysterious flying machine.

We must educate people to drones and their use.
 
reductio ad absurdum... Not the most persuasive of debate techniques. Kind of juvenile actually.

.......And a persons body beneath their clothes is NOT in the public domain and what you’re seeing there is an actual crime with severe penalties

Actually, the photo is from a real case decided by the Georgia Supreme Court which ruled that the photo was not illegal given the language of the law. The Washington state supreme court ruled the same way in a similar case. Both GA and WA state legislatures responded by changing the language of their laws. In WA, a reasonable expectation of privacy is not solely determined by physical location in public space. The use of zoom lenses to photo or video someone surreptitiously from afar can be an invasion of privacy under state law depending on circumstance.
 
Actually, the photo is from a real case decided by the Georgia Supreme Court which ruled that the photo was not illegal given the language of the law. The Washington state supreme court ruled the same way in a similar case. Both GA and WA state legislatures responded by changing the language of their laws. In WA, a reasonable expectation of privacy is not solely determined by physical location in public space. The use of zoom lenses to photo or video someone surreptitiously from afar can be an invasion of privacy under state law depending on circumstance.
Telephoto, not zoom. And even then it's only illegal under certain circumstances.
 
Telephoto, not zoom. And even then it's only illegal under certain circumstances.

Okay, but that was my point. There is no absolute right to photograph someone whenever and however you want with no possible legal ramification just because they are physically in a space open to the public which is where the discussion was going. Sorry about zoom gaffe. This was on my mind since I read a post here about the Nikon 80X. I looked at some videos and was blown away at the camera's capability which is probably entry level for some. The guy's point was that Mavic 2 is nowhere near the capability of that Nikon 80X yet it raises more objections.
 
The telephoto thing is an issue when using a telephoto lens to photograph someone in a private area, from outside the private area. Like across the street into a bedroom window. If the subject is in a clearly public place they're fair game. And no, an upskirt cellphone photo isn't relevant to the discussion, it's so far removed from reasonable use.
 
Any time you are confronted with a legal challenge that hasn't already been specifically addressed by either legal code or case law, the courts will consider what a "reasonable person" would believe. An upskirt cellphone photo isn't exactly something that a "reasonable person" would consider legally ok. It doesn't matter what the laws on public photography are, some things are obviously an invasion of privacy. In this case it's illegal not because it's in public, but because it's indecent.
 

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
131,505
Messages
1,563,729
Members
160,407
Latest member
Griffdrone