Aerial Journalism - Cited/Confiscated

[Olav van Gerven]

I live in a highly restricted county. NFZ's everywhere. There is a lot of negative energy directed at our beloved pastime, and I won't do anything to fan those flames. Professional journalists are a completely different category however, and I'm a supporter of Freedom of the Press. This is new territory. I wonder if press credentials would have gotten a legit reporter access for land based photos.

There is no agency in the US that isues press credentials. If you work for mainstream media, you get an ID from them, stating that you work for them. If you are independent, you can make your own cards. The US supreme court has stated, that the first amendment in regards to the press has to be understood, that as soon as you intend to publish, you have to be considered legitemate press. As long as you can see somtehing from a point where you can legally be, you can photo/video and publish it. Privacylaws will not apply, since the is no expetation of privacy in public (in the US, also ruled by the supreme court).

The thing in this case will not be the video/photo the operator took but the sole fact that he is suspected of starting a drone within the citylimtis of NY. The only way to see if this argument sticks is, to get caselaw.

 

[hiflyer201]

Look what the Paparazzi get away with everyday everywhere on the planet. He must have really ticked someone off.

 

[Hegemone]

Look what the Paparazzi get away with everyday everywhere on the planet. He must have really ticked someone off.

Or someone on the island got worried about safety issues related to a drone out of VLoS of the pilot or frankly even being able to see the pilot. Tense times lead to tense peoples.

 

[Chip]

As long as you can see something from a point where you can legally be, you can photo/video and publish it. Privacy laws will not apply, since the is no expectation of privacy in public (in the US, also ruled by the supreme court)...

Best to always check your state's laws. For example, CA law says that using high tech cameras or other equipment to capture images even if no physical trespass may be "constructive invasion of privacy." Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.8(1)(b) (2014) makes a person liable "for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of any device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the device was used."

 

[Olav van Gerven]

any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy,

That is the crucial thing.

Being in public means, there is no reasonable expectation for privacy. The CA laws would apply if you use technical equipment to overcome barriers clearly build to secure privacy. Any other application would be, at least, questionable in context of the constitution.

Now, in the case in New York, the operator seems to have simply miscalculated his luck. He never expected a "simple LEO" to know about the regulations that prohibits operating a drone on NY. Confiscating the drone also seems to be legal, it is evidence of what he was doing. Like I said before, if this case indeed is coming into court, it probably will be a fight between "I have the right to gain information for (possible) publication, This is covered by the 1st amendment" at one side and "we do not deny you this right, we just deny you the operating of a drone in NY." Adn to be honost, I am not sure if he will win the battle.

 

[Chip]

Apologies if this has already been posted. Encouraging to see aerial journalism at work. But so much for Freedom of the Press.

Photographer cited, had drone confiscated for documenting Hart Island mass burials

George Steinmetz, whose aerial photography work appears in National Geographic and the New York Times, was cited for flying his drone over a massive burial ditch on Hart Island.

www.dpreview.com

Very interesting case to test right of photo journalist to use drone to investigate and report on important current events. The mainstream media played the same pics of body bags in hospital corridor over and over. If that was important to show the public, then the graves dug on this secret island are as well. Its morbid but its news. I hope the journalist challenges ordinance as his First Amendment rights to gather and report news like this should outweigh the arbitrary and capricious ban on drones.

 

[Chip]

That is the crucial thing.

Being in public means, there is no reasonable expectation for privacy. The CA laws would apply if you use technical equipment to overcome barriers clearly build to secure privacy. Any other application would be, at least, questionable in context of the constitution.

Now, in the case in New York, the operator seems to have simply miscalculated his luck. He never expected a "simple LEO" to know about the regulations that prohibits operating a drone on NY. Confiscating the drone also seems to be legal, it is evidence of what he was doing. Like I said before, if this case indeed is coming into court, it probably will be a fight between "I have the right to gain information for (possible) publication, This is covered by the 1st amendment" at one side and "we do not deny you this right, we just deny you the operating of a drone in NY." Adn to be honost, I am not sure if he will win the battle.

Yes, I agree could be tough legal argument BUT it seems like a very good set of facts for a test case. Photos are clearly newsworthy, site is not readily accessible or viewable by public absent special permission and one week notice (which gives plenty of time to manipulate evidence at site), its government owned and operated in partial veil of secrecy, no one else has reported on story, and the compelling rationale for blanket prohibition on all drone flights including this one does not exist.

 

[Hegemone]

Very interesting case to test right of photo journalist to use drone to investigate and report on important current events. The mainstream media played the same pics of body bags in hospital corridor over and over. If that was important to show the public, then the graves dug on this secret island are as well. Its morbid but its news. I hope the journalist challenges ordinance as his First Amendment rights to gather and report news like this should outweigh the arbitrary and capricious ban on drones.

I really don't know if this is place is a big secret. Based on everything that's being said this has been common and public practice on this island for a very long time. Mass and pauper's grave are nothing new at all. It just rubs our compassion and sensibilities the wrong way.

I would bet if you do some asking around just about every area with a reasonable population has similar arrangements some where. It's the the current situation has magnified the need for such places. Look back in history to places like the catacombs beneath a lot of major cities in Europe.

 

[Hegemone]

Yes, I agree could be tough legal argument BUT it seems like a very good set of facts for a test case. Photos are clearly newsworthy, site is not readily accessible or viewable by public absent special permission and one week notice (which gives plenty of time to manipulate evidence at site), its government owned and operated in partial veil of secrecy, no one else has reported on story, and the compelling rationale for blanket prohibition on all drone flights including this one does not exist.

I just don't get why he didn't take his chartered heli to get the pictures. Dude was all over the city taking pictures of the current situation from a private craft. Could have gotten the same pictures from a better vantage and with a better camera. Again I question the motivation for wanting to use the drone. But I am a naturally skeptical. This charge has gone a long way to getting him some additional air time and publicity outside of photo circles.