Had my first semi "confrontation"

[ac0j]

I totally agree but they do claim to be lord of every tiny piece of air from your shoelaces to the heavens! With just a slight hat tip if you will to the little people (ie the states that make up the United States of America).

I know, as do the other agencies..... BUT, the FAA does not trump anyone in reality OTHER than what you put in the air. I dont even understand how they came up with the commercial drone pilot crap for toys under 10 pounds......

 

[lisadoc]

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.

Just to clarify, it is BS. This is a weird declaration, especially coming from an alleged realtor in Texas, as that is required knowledge for licensing in Texas. Subsurface rights (technically "mineral rights") in Texas are not owned by the state. They are, however, severable (meaning someone else other than the real property owner [the "surface estate"] can own them) and oftentimes, especially in places where those rights are valuable, they are owned by a 3rd party. These ownership rights are part of any real estate transaction in Texas (and many other states) and so when you purchase property in Texas, you may or may not be buying both rights, as it should be designated in the transaction.

The State of Texas does not own the mineral rights of private property - only property owned by the State and/or purchased as a separate right from a private estate owner.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Any locality can make and enforce any law or restriction they like, then prosecute you for disobeying it.

Until a state or federal court overturns it if it's in conflict with state or federal law.

 

[Scooterx64]

Many people were shocked all over world! Then all over again a few years ago when Georgia Supreme Court said the same thing. Of course, the fault here lay with the wording of the statutes. I assume the judges disliked the result but in this case felt they had to enforce criminal law exactly as written.

Last time I went to UW Huskies game I saw signs posted that said no photography allowed yet everyone was snapping away with no interference from security. What are the rules with this?

Yes, it was a poorly written law for the act as they committed it. It was amended in 2017 to deal with the specific case where basically as I understand it defined privacy to include areas of your body which are reasonably discreetly covered so as not to be publicly viewable. I am only slightly amazed that it took 15 years to get the law updated. (the original "crime" happened in 1999, the WA state supreme court ruling was in 2002)

 

[Vegasdad]

Just be nice and say no. Now here how easy was that. You don’t need to be rude be nice and explain when you land you can talk a bit more.

 

[Cymruflyer]

There are " " everywhere regardless of the situation. Mans best friend heels at our side like a shadow on our walks and yet when people have unruly dogs pulling on them and trying to get at Brodie they will sometimes yell at us "why is your dog not leashed" while wrestling with their untrained dog. We just smile and 'have a nice day". Americans (I am one) seem to be inheritanly unhappy/nasty. Just be polite and move along.

Well there have been cases where even the most well behaved dogs have attacked a person, so have a leash law means that if that ever happened, you would have control and not the guilt that your extremely obedient dog lost it one day and tore the face off a child. I m not against dogs, but if the law says to leash it, you should. Since it is so obedient, then a leash on it makes no difference since the dig is healed right by your side anyway, so I don't se a reason for a discussion about it.

 

[chazzm]

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 call BS on this, name some states that require this,,,,,

 

[Chip]

Subsurface rights (technically "mineral rights") in Texas are not owned by the state. They are, however, severable (meaning someone else other than the real property owner [the "surface estate"] can own them) and oftentimes, especially in places where those rights are valuable, they are owned by a 3rd party...

Back in the old days (beginning around 1500s) we used to say:

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos

Latin for "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell." Its a principle of property law, stating that property holders have rights not only to the plot of land itself, but also to the air above and (in the broader formulation) the ground below. The principle is often referred to in its abbreviated form as the ad coelum doctrine.

We only relatively recently traded away air rights to those who demanded navigable airspace to conduct business.

 

[Bigbird48]

Last week I came across a pedestrian covered bridge on a beautiful River, I could see a flag hanging down from the bridge.Because of were I was located I could not see the lower side of the river below the bridge, as I walked out on the bridge with my drone I saw people swimming down stream , this was the side of the bridge that had the flag hanging and I really wanted to shoot it as I flew up stream ,I wouldn't even need to fly over the people. I decided not to fly on that side of the bridge as I didn't want to upset the people swimming. I remember where this place is and will go back at a time when its cooler out and less likely to find people swimming.

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

Thats an issue. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD.

We own devices that are noisy, do disturb people and do make them feel uncomfortable. Arrogantly demanding a right to use it whenever and wherever is "legal" and completely ignoring the opinions of other people seems a very good way to make them so unpopular legislation a lot more draconian eventually gets passed.

Some people seem to deliberately enjoy upsetting and annoying others with them just because they can.

 

[T.C.]

I'm curious too. Usually it boils down to an "Expectation of Privacy." There isn't any at public locations. Photography and Videography are generally protected by 1st Amendment rights. So as long as it's a public place, there shouldn't be any laws against it. The big exception is for Audio. There are Eavesdropping laws that make it illegal to record conversations without permission. This isn't typically a problem with Drones, at least DJI drones since they don't record audio. Even then, many states allow it as long as one party consents to the recording.

If a person is out in public have they forfeited their right to privacy?

 

[HeavensAbove]

If a person is out in public have they forfeited their right to privacy?

Pretty much. It’s a scary world out there. Hermits know the score.

 

[ac0j]

Pretty much. It’s a scary world out there. Hermits know the score.

Well, its not THAT cut and dried. BUT pretty close. I bet in campgrounds with campers and tents people would be able to expect privacy. In a public restroom, on a private hotel balcony. I know, its thin! But not hopeless!

 

[Chip]

Its not just where the picture is taken but what you do with it and for what purpose.

Catsouras was a teenager who took her father's 911 Porsche out for a spin one day. She crashed on a CA highway at 100 mph and died with grotesque injuries. Two California Highway patrol officers who responded to the call took photos of Catsouras (who was obviously in public view) and sent them to a few friends for Halloween. Somehow, the photos circulated and ultimately went viral. Sick people began sending the photos to Catsouras's parents with nasty jokes and taunts just to torment them. CA trial court judge dismissed the claim against the two troopers and the CHP for negligence, invasion of privacy etc. One of the troopers claimed he was providing a public service by warning of the dangers of driving under the influence (even though no alcohol in bloodstream). If you were on the CA court of appeal reviewing that dismissal, what would you say?

 

[ac0j]

Thats horrible.
I would reprimand the officers. To many people assume "not ilegal" is a substitute for Moral.
Its not about what you can do, it IS always about what you SHOULD do.
Doing what you should not do because there is no law against it, is exactly why they are constantly adding new laws.

 

[Chip]

it IS always about what you SHOULD do.

The CA court of appeal agreed with you:

In the matter before us there is no indication that any issue of public interest or freedom of the press was involved.  In determining what is a matter of legitimate public interest, account must be taken of the customs and conventions of the community;  and in the last analysis what is proper becomes a matter of the community mores.   The line is to be drawn when the publicity ceases to be the giving of information to which the public is entitled, and becomes a morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake, with which a reasonable member of the public, with decent standards, would say that he has no concern...Put another way, morbid and sensational eavesdropping or gossip “serves no legitimate public interest and is not deserving of protection.

Here, the picture painted...is one of pure morbidity and sensationalism without legitimate public interest or law enforcement purpose.   The trial court erred in dismissing the...cause of action for invasion of privacy...

CHP paid the parents $2.3 million to settle after decision was published.

Nikki Catsouras

 

[ac0j]

*golf clap*

 

[jaysrmc]

LOL! The FAA is not lord over all people.
It is just another government agency with thousands of overpaid talking heads doing what they do. Just like tha National Park service, the postal service, the FCC and so on. Any locality can make and enforce any law or restriction they like, then prosecute you for disobeying it. Just like Marijuana use and sale is against Federal law, Yet several states ignore that fact. Just like they will ignore what the FAA tells them they should or shouldn't do.

I concur with what you said. Yes federal law supersedes statutory but your right about states ignoring federal law and acting on what voters want. You can buy medical marijuana here in Arizona but if u get pulled over by border patrol, u can bet your sweet butt that your going to jail.

 

[ac0j]

I concur with what you said. Yes federal law supersedes statutory but your right about states ignoring federal law and acting on what voters want. You can buy medical marijuana here in Arizona but if u get pulled over by border patrol, u can bet your sweet butt that your going to jail.

Crazy how that works isnt it!

Some of the states made weed legal, but it is still against the law to be under the influence of it in public or while driving. Or even using it in public.

 

[jaysrmc]

Crazy how that works isnt it!

Some of the states made weed legal, but it is still against the law to be under the influence of it in public or while driving. Or even using it in public.

It's crazy and I would rather not deal with the bs so if I am going to fly beyond line of sight, I do it in the middle of nowhere in the desert.

 

[Chip]

Can you photograph anyone you want with a drone out in public and publish it in the state of Idaho?

Idaho State Statute 21-213 Restrictions on Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Excerpts)

(a) Absent a warrant, and except for emergency response for safety, search and rescue or controlled substance investigations, no person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to intentionally conduct surveillance of, gather evidence or collect information about, or photographically or electronically record specifically targeted persons or specifically targeted private property including, but not limited to:

(i) An individual or a dwelling owned by an individual and such dwelling’s curtilage, without such individual’s written consent;

(ii) A farm, dairy, ranch or other agricultural industry without the written consent of the owner of such farm, dairy, ranch or other agricultural industry.

(b) No person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to photograph or otherwise record an individual, without such individual’s written consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph or recording.

(3) Any person who is the subject of prohibited conduct under subsection (2) of this section shall:

(a) Have a civil cause of action against the person, entity or state agency for such prohibited conduct; and

(b) Be entitled to recover from any such person, entity or state agency damages in the amount of the greater of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or actual and general damages, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.



​