Thought experiment: it’s 2023 and you have one of the new mavics with a 2 hour battery. You decide to fly over a drive in movie theater, launching from outside the gates, point the camera at the screen and start recording the new He Man movie. The battery fails at 1:45 because it’s cold, it falls and strikes a kid who’s parents sue the theater owners for failure to anticipate your actions. Regardless of your intent to post to YouTube or keep a copy at home for your own private entertainment this is the basic deal. They are making a licensing and safety claim. Don’t abid by these things if that’s your jam but it will further erode relationships and good will with the public.
Oh I like these... so I'll bite on this bait...
Not sure how it even applies. So first, you are legally liable for any damage your drone does, just like driving a car. Change it to a car in the parking lot, hits a kid, do the parents sue the theater because the theater didn't anticipate the driver running over a child? No, it goes to auto insurance for the driver.
I mean what would happen if a Cessna crashed into the theater? Would the parents sue the theater because that's the premise in this thought experiment, or would the pilot be liable? Or are we back to limiting where all aircraft can fly, remember, the FAA sees a drone as an private aircraft, similar to a Cessna, just one is manned the other isn't. (other differences as well, but in this case...)
Also, you are flying at night, over people who may not be under any cover (most drive-ins allow you to sit outside your car, or in a truck bed), making the flight likely illegal in the first place, but not because of the property ownership status, but rather because of the sustained Flight over people and night time flight rules. Also, the theater could have your drone likely removed as a public nuisance with it's 3SM strobe attached. You also said it was a DJI drone, which won't crash when the battery runs low, they land, making this even less likely to have happened.
They sue the theater, but the liability is on you, the case is dismissed by the judge once the FAA provides your name, since the drone crashed and caused bodily harm, the FAA would investigate. If you didn't report the accident, then there are larger proceedings in your future. If you did report, then they would never have sued the theater, just you.
Now, the copyright owner, Matel or whoever made the movie, now sues you because that is theft of a copyrighted movie, and DMCA applies to it. The FAA provided your name to them as well, and just attempting to steal the movie is illegal, with fines up to $500,000 for a first offense just for possessing it (or part thereof) illegally. Once again, nothing to do with flying over the site, it happens to be what you are doing while flying over it.
So, was it illegal for you to fly over the drivein? No, not at all. Was crashing and causing bodily harm and not reporting illegal? Yes. How about theft of a DMCA protected movie? Yep sure is. They would be in a TON of trouble, and probably see jailtime for it and massive fines, but none of it would have anything to do with the actual flight nor location, but rather what you did while flying.
And if you want to say you did report the crash, then it is an insurance claim, not a lawsuit, unless you did more damage than your insurance covers. If you are a hobbyist, you should have the AMA insurance, and if you are commercial you should have business insurance. Good luck with the FAA fines and the DMCA lawsuit however.
I did say in my original post here, that what's legal and what's moral/ethical are not always in alignment. But my point was, you can't restrict private aircraft flight over private property without completely ruining several major industries, Hot Air Balloons, Gliders, Ultralights, skydiving, recreational pilots and more.
Also I can see 100% of a drive-in theater from 50' in the air and across the street eliminating the risk of hitting someone. Maybe the pilot just needs to attend some flight safety meetings...
Funny part is, people would see a hot air balloon and be fine with it, and have no problem with a photographer taking out an insane telephoto lens and taking pics from a hot air balloon because they wouldn't know, but the drone they KNOW has a camera, and that starts all sorts of paranoia.
Agreed. There are laws and then there is being a decent human.
Edit: expanding my thoughts.
If I was at the garden enjoying the day with my family I would not want a drone buzzing around overhead. Even at 300ft up I can easily hear my
Mini 2 It would be worse with a larger drone or one at a lower altitude.
...
We are all ambassadors for this relatively new hobby. I implore us to be better than “just the law”.
Funny part is, My
Mini 2 is at least twice as loud as my
MA2S. I track the mini by sound even at 500', and I completely lose the sound of my
A2S by 300'. There are 2 issues in the OP, one, flying over private property, and two, photographing a work of art that the owner says "Please do not do". I agree to work with the Garden if that's what you want to photograph, but their rules aren't law.
We risk the problem, if we carve a niche out for ourselves that is completely different than any other aircraft, we could lose all of the protections provided by being an aircraft.