Got a visit while flying near Denver Broncos stadium today at 5:40am

[zlek131]

Beautiful shot.

Thank you.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

Vic Moss have have some insight to this stadium, he is from there and at the top of the field in these issues.

 

[zlek131]

Also, if you can photo or video record something in a public place, that is not against any law etc.

Thank you. My understanding as well.

 

[zlek131]

Vic Moss have have some insight to this stadium, he is from there and at the top of the field in these issues.

Yup, hoping/waiting for @Vic Moss response…

 

[Droning on and on...]

Except that permission is not theirs to grant? I'm not saying one shouldn't ask, or that asking isn't good practice (I wouldn't but that's just me), just that the stadium has no authority to refuse under the circumstances outlined by the OP.

Yeah... And that's the approach you can take, if you'd like. Treat it like a law school opportunity. Have an argument on the spot with the Security Guard who shows up. Tell them they don't know FAA regulations.

That's one approach. After more authorities get involved, more time is spent, tempers flare, and on and on. I've seen it posted here to varying degrees. And in most cases the pilot is "legally" right, and ultimately, if they want to push it, will win.

That's one way.

There's another.

 

[spamgnome]

"The funding deal between the Broncos and the State of Colorado called for the team to pay 25% of the estimated cost of $400 million while the state would pay the other 75% of the cost." *

It's 75% YOUR stadium! Fly as you wish.

*

Empower Field at Mile High - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JimSteadman]

I was in California last year in January and visited the Rose Bowl. I was on the premises, but outside the gates to the stadium. Asked a security guard if I could put the drone up and take some photos as long as I did not fly directly over the stadium. He said it was OK. Although he wasn't 'management' and may not have had authority. I put the drone up, took some shots and put together a short video. No problems. I realize this is not the NFL which wants to monetize everything from toilet paper to straws, but sometimes if you ask nice...

 

[Droning on and on...]

I was at the Rose Bowl last year in January. Asked the security guard for permission to fly outside the gate (but not over the stadium itself) and got it. I wasn't sure he had the authority to let me do it, but he did and I flew.View attachment 175234

Another nice shot!

Whether or not he had any authority to deny you the flight, and whether or not the law technically allowed it is missing the forest for the trees.

You treated him with respect, respected the job he was charged with doing, created a good will relationship from the beginning, and guess what?

It's not always about beating your chest and asserting your "rights". In fact, that approach often is the least successful in getting you what you want. Rather, it hardens positions, and leads to whoever the first-line authority there on the spot choosing to let someone with a higher pay grade sort things out.

 

[jsflyrv]

Good morning! Nice photo. Here in Las Vegas I fly over Allegiant Stadium all the time. I do not fly directly over it since it's slightly higher than the allowed height I can fly up to. I've never had any issues here even though its very close to McCarran Airport too. No TFR's, and I get LAANC approval all the time. Also, if you can photo or video record something in a public place, that is not against any law etc.

What is the allowed height you can fly up to?

 

[BobaFut]

Yeah... And that's the approach you can take, if you'd like. Treat it like a paw school opportunity. Have an argument on the spot with the Security Guard who shows up. Tell them they don't know FAA regulations.

That's one approach. After more authorities get involved, more time is spent, tempers flare, and on and on. I've seen it posted here to varying degrees. And in most cases the pilot is "legally" right, and ultimately, if they want to push it, will win.

That's one way.

There's another.

You might want to read the rest of my post before wagging your finger at me.

 

[Droning on and on...]

You might want to read the rest of my post before wagging your finger at me.

I can see how you could take it that way, but that wasn't the point. Rather, some wisdom with age, having played that sort of game in other circumstances much younger, and learning that what I'm primarily trying to achieve is actually more important than "being right".

 

[twickers14]

Cat among the pigeons but glad to see most folk think you did fine. Great shot and we are all the better for seeing it and your work (and the risks you take on our behalf)!

 

[Parkerjh]

I had the same exact thing happened to me at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro.

Next to the stadium there's a Bass pro shop and behind that there's a cranberry bog and nature preserve. I was doing some photography down there and tried to get a few shots up around the stadium. Again, it wasn't anywhere near an event.

I was remotely parked way out of the way, and security camera right up to me, they knew exactly where I was from Aeroscope. Admittedly, I had taken off from the Bass pro shop lot, they told me that was Patriots property, and they have a no take off policy. He asked me to delete my SD card, which I pretended to do. Took my info, gave me a warning, and said next time if I come back and they realize it's me again, they'll call the police for trespassing.



They were totally friendly enough, and now, when I want to get photos of the area, I just don't park on their property. But I fly over the stadium. Same security team approached me when I wasn't on their property, and said I couldn't fly over the stadium. I told them that I could and they left.

 

[Etbrown4]

It may be a dumb question, or good for a skilled lawyer, and may vary from country to country, or even state to state.... Does any property owner have the right to prevent you from flying a drone above their property and taking photos, including unoccupied NFL stadiums?

I have heard that in some US states there may be laws against lingering over someone's home or building, don't know, but it seems most unlikely that if I want to fly over any given house, building, or stadium, take a quick pic and fly on, it seems almost certainly legal as long as it's not a restricted area. What do the laws saw?

If I want to photo the Empire State Building from off their property, don't I have the right to do so? Even selling the photos if I choose to? From a drone, obviously part 107 is needed.

 

[Vic Moss]

You can 100% legally fly over the empty stadium. The security guard can't stop you. He can ask you not to. But that's it. As you said, you weren't on their property, so they had no say so.

And you can even do this during a preseason game.

 

[Vic Moss]

Yup, hoping/waiting for @Vic Moss response…

Didn't see the post until now.

 

[Dmcvey]

Actually, everyone was cool. They detected the drone and as security checked it out. Found no issue and moved on.

 

[Illuminata Photo]

So, I'm a 107 drone pilot and a professional photographer. I try very hard to understand the laws, rules and regulations that apply to my work. I know the ins and outs of numerous situations so that I can work within the rules and not knowingly violate them. It's hard for me to believe that you were in the wrong in this situation. Generally, it's legal to take a photograph and use/display/sell it where there's no right to privacy (like inside a private facility or *on* private property). In this situation, you were not on private property and any photograph that you take is yours to do with as you please. There's no difference between this photograph from a drone versus taking a photograph from a public street with a camera in your hand - it's legal and it's yours to use.

HOWEVER, I was recently contacted by my stock agency about several drone photographs that I had taken of a unique business situation (corporate testing facility) in Illinois. I had to do some checking on the rules in Illinois regarding drones and privacy. It turns out that Illinois has a law that says something to the effect that if you own a property where you have an expectation of privacy, then it is trespassing (or something like that) to photograph it. I apologize for not recalling the exact language, but it was a pretty unique situation. Anyway, the stock agency pulled those particular photographs.

 

[Vic Moss]

HOWEVER, I was recently contacted by my stock agency about several drone photographs that I had taken of a unique business situation (corporate testing facility) in Illinois. I had to do some checking on the rules in Illinois regarding drones and privacy. It turns out that Illinois has a law that says something to the effect that if you own a property where you have an expectation of privacy, then it is trespassing (or something like that) to photograph it. I apologize for not recalling the exact language, but it was a pretty unique situation. Anyway, the stock agency pulled those particular photographs.

Numerous SCOTUS rulings have ruled that anything visible from a public thoroughfare (the NAS is a public thoroughfare) has no "reasonable expectation of privacy". Therefore, you can sell imagery taken with a drone w/o permission. There will be some usage restrictions (commercial vs. editorial for example), but you can sell it.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Numerous SCOTUS rulings have ruled that anything visible from a public thoroughfare (the NAS is a public thoroughfare) has no "reasonable expectation of privacy".

Did the SCOTUS provide that explicit interpretation of the NAS, and if not, who did if anyone?

Were that the law so precise, and automatic! Fortunately, it is not (none of us would like to live under such a system).

So, whatever/whoever offered this interpretation will have to come to your defense when the state flexes it's jurisdictional muscles over it's laws, which experience shows it most certainly will if an "aggrieved" party pushes the issue. As has happened many, many times to drone pilots violating local and state laws, whether they're valid or not in a jurisdictional question.

That doesn't resolve itself simply by offering it as a defense. It almost always must be resolved by process, which can be lengthy, and expensive.

What the "law" actually "is" is not cut-and-dried, but rather fuzzy. And it can change because of a court decision. Even long-standing law. Consider for example recent developments re: abortion in the US (NO POLITICAL DISCUSSION PLEASE!!!).

Whether something is legal or not, how the law is interpreted, has more to do with if a party has power, and the resources, to successfully enforce their interpretation.

Joe Dronie generally does not. A state does. So if the FAA says that the entire NAS shall be interpreted to be a "public thoroughfare" as stated in the SCOTUS ruling, and a state (Governor John Pinette ) says, "NAY NAY!", you're getting convicted under their code, and it's up to you to appeal that and get the SCOTUS to clarify.