Had my first semi "confrontation"

[griffinhart]

Perhaps in the U.S. But there seem to be plenty of people on this forum not in the U.S.

True enough but the comments were specifically talking about US States.

 

[Elton Hammonds]

If he requests that you delete it, some states require you to do so. Not everyone wants to be recorded by a complete stranger, so YOU need to be mindful of what you're doing.

I would like to know what states and see a link to that section of law if that's true.

No one has the reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

This isn't North Korea.

He did nothing wrong and your reply sounded like you were scolding him.

You don't need to talk to anyone like that in this forum.

"YOU," as you addressed SpiderSkeets, need to offer him an apology.

 

[Bigbird48]

I have had a few people ask if I'm filming and tell me to stop. I just keep flying say I'm working and can't talk now. If they get nasty with me I land tell them its a public place and I can film and if they don't like it they can leave and then they won't be filmed.

 

[Drone_guy]

As a new owner of MP I'm always concern about possibility of confrontations when flying my drone. In addition, living in Toronto is not easy to find good/save place to fly drones so for first 3 months I only flew my MP once. I also bought TELLO which I used mostly inside to learn how to fly/control drone.
Three weeks ago, with my friend, we went for a motorcycle trip to Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec. On the third day of the trip we spotted nice covered bridge and we decided to stop and record some footage using GoPro cameras and MP. I flew MP up and down the river recording video and as I was about to come back and land my drone I notice a car parking next to our motorcycles. My first reaction was I'm in trouble and all the fun/joy from flying my drone just disappeared in instance. Two men emerged from the car and they approach us, after usual exchange of 'HELLO' and 'HOW ARE YOU?' they look at the display of the monitor, smile and the only question they asked was:
"When you flew over the river did you see any salmon?"
I laughed and said the only salmon I've ever seen was when my wife serves one for dinner on a plate. This was a breaking point for me, from this point on I flew my MP number of times and really enjoy the experience. Majority of people don't mind drones or video cameras but there are always few which are exceptions.
The attached footage documents this story and I have to say this is my favorite clip from the entire trip:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Lol..nice video!

 

[RayOZ]

Would it make the situation worse if you say "I don't think you are good looking enough to film"?

 

[lastingimage]

I have been a photojournalist for 40 years and am therefore well versed on 1st amendment rights and free speech. It is not as cut and dry as some people believe. First off the general public does not always enjoy the same protections the Press does.

"the Supreme Court reiterated, “To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.” Hurley v. Irish-American ***, Lesbian & Bisexual Group (1995)"

I always carry my press credentials while flying my drone for a newspaper shoot for this very reason. All is fair game. For the general public photographing in a public place, whether by hand held camera or drone, things can get a little cloudy. When someone attends a public event whether it be sports, concert, or whatever there is reasonable expectation that they could appear in photographs taken at the event whether by press or public citizen. Does the same apply to someone walking through a public park? Well for the press, yes. For the average person the same might not apply (see the excerpt above from the Supreme Court). A lot depends if the person just so happens to be in the background of a photo or if they are the chief subject of said photo. Also, what will the phot be used for, Personal, Social Media, Commercial Publication? This is why members of the working press NEVER have to get anyone to sign a release, hence protected speech. If a member of the public takes a photo with someone that is identifiable and sells it to a service or publication without the subjects permission they can find themselves in trouble. Now lets get to the crux of the situation.....Drone Photography. If you are flying in a public place, and your drone is at a reasonable height (lets say 10 feet or higher) you should be fine.
Don't want to be too lengthy but I'll leave you with a story:
A man was fishing in a lake in a public park in NJ. A Newspaper Photographer snapped a scenic of the lake. The man was in the photo and was visually identifiable. We always try to identify the individuals in newspaper photos so the photographer asked the man for his name. The man refused and said he didn't want his picture taken. Too late! Photo ran in the paper next day (image was so strong that identifying the individual wasn't necessary, picture stood on it's own merits). Turns out the guy fishing was playing hooky from work that day, his boss saw the photo in the paper and fired him on the spot. The man sued the newspaper. Want to guess who won. The newspaper of course. Case went to the highest court in the state. The newspaper and photojournalist prevailed at every step. Now let me ask you. If a member of the general public took the photo and sold it to a publication would the same privileges apply. I think not. This is where the waters become muddied.
As I stated above, with drone photography all people are incidental so you should be fine at any public venue. Hope this helps.

 

[Broken Arrow]

First off Welcome to the community. I believe the case you quoted has more to do with Free Speech instead of right to privacy. I fail to find any connection to original post.
Question what makes one a "member of the press? a badge? a zoom lens camera?
How does a 107 selling a public photo different from a Free Lance Paparazzi chasing people down the sidewalk? Not all press are the same and do tell if their is a secret membership.
Not trying to argue but you seem to "muddy" the lines and put the press on a step above the general public.

 

[lastingimage]

A member of the Press is someone who is employed by a real news agency ie: Newspaper, Magazine, Online etc. In NJ where I work valid credentials are issued by a joint body of the State, State Troopers, and New Jersey Press Association (NJPA). The application for the credentials are made by the publisher. As far as your second point, Paparazzi take photos of celebrities or someone getting their 15 minutes of fame. Along with this "fame" goes an expectation that your photo will be taken and published, a big difference from getting a photo of a random person in a park. As far as your last point goes, I never said nor hope that I ever insinuate that the Press is "above" anyone else. The point I was making is simply that a different standard applies to press vs the average citizen. A lot of what people think of as 1st amendment rights and right to access do not always apply across the board. An example is when I have to shoot an auto accident or fire scene. Whereas a citizen with a camera must stay behind police lines members of the working Press are allowed right up to the scene at a distance the authorities deem to be safe for all involved while being sure to grant access. The citizen with a camera might argue that everyone is protected by the same Constitution and shall then be granted the same rights. It just is not the case.

 

[Broken Arrow]

Just to be clear, the Press has the right to cross "Police Lines" or are they merely offered a Occupation Privilege?

 

[nevernamed]

my understanding is you can film in public, but if you were to post online (youtube), and somehow you were close enough to visually identify them, if they didn't want to be in your video, you just have to blur them.. People prank people for youtube videos based on this all the time. Police have been called in many cases and they can't do anything.

 

[lastingimage]

It is not an absolute right. Whenever I come across such a situation I make contact with a police officer on the scene. If they don't already know me from the beat I cover I Identify myself as Press and display my credentials which are either hanging on my camera bag or around my neck on a lanyard. I then respectfully request access. This access is what is protected in the Constitution. It can be denied in certain circumstances.

"Courts have recognized under the auspices of the First Amendment a press privilege to be left alone by the police, so long as the media do not unreasonably interfere with or obstruct police activity or risk their own personal safety."

I remember back in the day of film there were cases of some police officers confiscating film from Press Photographers. This is a tangible act of a 1st Amendment violation which ended badly for the officers. I have been very fortunate having had the experience of dealing with law enforcement professionals who are just that , professional. They go out of their way to accommodate and grand reasonable access unless there is a threat to my own safety or the integrity of the scene . I have had a few instances where a new or rouge cop made up their own rules but it was all cleared up immediately after a call to a supervisor. Only once did I have a law enforcement office go after my camera. I dropped the charges because the officer was new and didn't know any better. The consequences of a conviction would have been grave for his career. But out of a great respect for his profession and understanding of his lack of knowledge I relented.
It is not a privilege it is a right with restrictions. The officer than either makes a judgement call on what a safe distance is or calls it in to the chief. At that point I am then escorted to a position from which I can attain photos that tell the story. I guess the real point I am trying to make is that when people banter all of this 1st Amendment right stuff about what it really breaks down to is that in our country people have a right to know. That does not mean just anyone can do whatever they want to get that information. Think of the Press as a tool with which the general public is granted their access.

 

[Brojon]

If he requests that you delete it, some states require you to do so. Not everyone wants to be recorded by a complete stranger, so YOU need to be mindful of what you're doing.

Where do you guys *get* this stuff?
AFAIK there are no states in the US that have anything remotely capable of allowing anyone to demand you delete a photo. They can't even demand tro see what you took and that includes cops. Your best answer is "no" to the question "are you recording". End of story go away.
Public and privacy laws are very clear, settled law in the US and they state that if you are in a public place there is no expectation of privacy and the photographer may do with the photo as he/she mostly pleases. The exception is if a work is used for product promotion. It was even tried one time to argue a photographer web site was a "promotion of a product" and was shot down. The law means promotion in the sense using it to sell cereal or Viagra or something of that nature.
Now Europe is entirely another story with places like Great Britain going over and beyond in the whole privacy thing. Some places you'd think the way the law reads if you look at someone cross-eyed it's a bookable offense.

 

[TangoDelta]

Some people are just weary of being filmed or in photos.

I try to stay out of pics and video myself. Not that I care, but I don’t want to ruin someone’s shot and there’s really no reason for me to be taped or pictured anyway. Legal or not this guy could have just been having a rough day and wanted to relax and go for a walk without a drone buzzing around.

In my opinion, there is really no right time to argue or get into a confrontation except when the drone in down and packed-up. You’re at a serious disadvantage to defend yourself, verbally or otherwise, with a controller+phone in your hands and a $1000 drone up in the air.

 

[Brojon]

It is not an absolute right. Whenever I come across such a situation I make contact with a police officer on the scene. .

You're incorrect. The ONLY time a person can be "in public" and yet "private" is when they have made an obvious effort to seclude themselves. The best example that comes to mind would be a woman breastfeeding - or a someone having to relieve themselves in the bushes. People that go around trying their best to be obsequious are doing a disservice to the photographic community because you are literally giving the wrong impression to authority figures. You never need permission in a public place with the exception I mentioned.
You folks are obsessed with drone law - if you want to do photography then you need to become informed on that also.
A great reference is Professional Photographers of America - PPA.
Then there's Bert Krages an intellectual property lawyer and an expert in the law and photography.
He even has a free printout you can use to show people that have a misunderstanding.

 

[wwohp]

There's video after video (First Amendment Audit) of folks getting a free education about what you can film on public property on the link below...

|||||||||| News Now Dallas ||||||||||

especially this guy who lost his job after touching the person's video camera...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

There are activist doing First Amendment Audits throughout the U.S. Just search YouTube.

 

[DroningOn]

If he requests that you delete it, some states require you to do so.

I’m not surprised that such an erroneous assertion was made but I am stunned that it wasn’t immediately pointed out and corrected. The “expectation of privacy in public” legal standard is settled law in this country and can’t be overridden by individual states.

 

[djscoe]

For the most part people are very nice but curious. They want to know a more about the drone and I've been very respectful. Except the lady that kept insisting that I was flying illegally, which I most certainly was not. He kept commenting loudly that it was illegal. I finally had enough and promptly informed her that I was an FAA certified pilot and that I knew the rules. She rudely replied that it was annoying. Under my breath, maybe a little too loudly, I said "You're annoying". From now on I think I am going to draw up a one sheet list of answers to common questions and hand them to people with a polite comment that I have to concentrate on the copter and I'd love to answer any other questions once it's landed. I also have a vest, that I've never warn, that has a statement about my FAA certification on front and back that might keep them away for a while. Maybe even a GoPro on my chest to record any "confrontations". It's extreme but you never know when you might need it.

 

[Michigan_PI]

As a licensed Private Investigator doing surveillance for over 30 years, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. Furthermore, I could argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in non-public spaces that are fully visible from public spaces.
The caveat of the second being that the camera would have to be in located in a place that is readily accessible to the public and the surveillance not being conducted from private property unless the operator had the permission of the owner, property manager, resident or occupant. Since we're not discussing surveillance, the second example is irrelevant; however, it is possible to unintentionally capture someone on video from your UAV in the second example. No intent, no foul.
I am not aware of any law, other than some obscure drone law in FL (that also has an element of private property), that gives any one person rights that violate your rights as a photographer or general citizen over an unintentional image or video taken in public space.
If someone is aware of such a law, please provide the statute so we can all be informed.

Regarding these incidents of "hostile contact" with people, remember that your device (or at least an IOS device) records your video feed locally WITH AUDIO from your devices microphone so all audio contact is being recorded. Again, people will jump in and claim that is illegal in a state that requires 2 party consent but there is no "intent" to eavesdrop with this feature of the app. If you are in a 2 party state and are a victim of a hostile confrontation, announce (don't ask permission) that audio and video are being recorded and it may (or may not) defuse them. If they say they don't want to be recorded then ask them to step away and be quiet.

 

[GreatScott]

As a licensed Private Investigator doing surveillance for over 30 years, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces. Furthermore, I could argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in non-public spaces that are fully visible from public spaces.
The caveat of the second being that the camera would have to be in located in a place that is readily accessible to the public and the surveillance not being conducted from private property unless the operator had the permission of the owner, property manager, resident or occupant. Since we're not discussing surveillance, the second example is irrelevant; however, it is possible to unintentionally capture someone on video from your UAV in the second example. No intent, no foul.
I am not aware of any law, other than some obscure drone law in FL (that also has an element of private property), that gives any one person rights that violate your rights as a photographer or general citizen over an unintentional image or video taken in public space.
If someone is aware of such a law, please provide the statute so we can all be informed.

Regarding these incidents of "hostile contact" with people, remember that your device (or at least an IOS device) records your video feed locally WITH AUDIO from your devices microphone so all audio contact is being recorded. Again, people will jump in and claim that is illegal in a state that requires 2 party consent but there is no "intent" to eavesdrop with this feature of the app. If you are in a 2 party state and are a victim of a hostile confrontation, announce (don't ask permission) that audio and video are being recorded and it may (or may not) defuse them. If they say they don't want to be recorded then ask them to step away and be quiet.

Michigan PI just beat me to asking if there was any expectation of privacy in public.

I can see not hovering 10 feet over people not interested in being recorded. Beyond basic common sense situations I dont think you have to delete upon request in public areas.

 

[TED54555]

So I was walking along a walking/bike path with my Mavic2 about 150 feet above me when a man coming from the other way, at first seemingly with a "oh, cool, a drone" look on his face. We exchanged "hellos" and as we pass each other, he asks if I am recording. I say yes. He then asks if I am recording him. I tell him that he might happen to be in the video but that I wasn't actually recording him (mind you, I was 150 feet up, so we were specks anyway) he then jumps in my face and asks me why I was recording him. We exchange some unpleasant words and I tell him that this is public property, blah blah blah. I ignore whatever he was saying and go on my merry way. What a jerk.
Turns out that I wasn't even recording like I thought I was!

You can't walk on a street anywhere without being recorded. There are more cameras in this country now than people. Wear a bag over your head for protection if you are that sensitive.