DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Had my first semi "confrontation"

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!

I normally reply “your not that interesting” Dont kid yourself...
 
North Carolina for one prohibits photographing others from a drone without their consent. It is not a criminal violation, but they can sue you in civil court. It doesn't specifically say you have to delete the images, but...
WRONG!!!!
 
It worries me that there is a bunch of you that are using the "LAW CARD" and think you can use it to do things to your fellow humans that they don't want done. Its not about being legal, its about being moral and kind.
Why would you want a picture of a stranger, especially if they don't want you to have it?
You seem to want to instigate confrontation so you can argue who is right?? There is no "in the park" picture worth that. There are some really disturbed people in the wild. One day, someone is going to run into one with a gun and nothing to lose. (Actually, it has already happened several times.)
Try quoting FAA laws to that crazy.... I doubt he will be impressed with your Journalistic or investigative skills.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nosebump
MP’s record audio, but you have to enable it and records only from the transmitter
 
It worries me that there is a bunch of you that are using the "LAW CARD" and think you can use it to do things to your fellow humans that they don't want done. Its not about being legal, its about being moral and kind.

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.
 
In the UK, I think that's why laws and guidelines differentiate between drones with cameras and those without, when stating distances from people.. I think it is known people will be unrecognisable at 150ft etc.(maybe the MP2 zoom changes that)

I have had people say "are you filming" and I've said "yes" but "don't worry, I'm not filming you", and they say "I don't mind either way"

But I think my main feedback that works best is, "I'm trying to get the landscape and the interesting objects, I'm trying my best NOT to get people in the shots, as it spoils the intent of the shot = uspoilt landscape..." ....So I'm basically waiting for you to leave now :)

And what others have said earlier is good "If I wanted to get you in the shot, I would use a camera with a long lens, just like that guy over there"...

But I don't want to confront.. it just messes up my mood.. so I try and find places with little people presence... but it's not always possible
 
It worries me that there is a bunch of you that are using the "LAW CARD" and think you can use it to do things to your fellow humans that they don't want done. Its not about being legal, its about being moral and kind.
Why would you want a picture of a stranger, especially if they don't want you to have it?
You seem to want to instigate confrontation so you can argue who is right?? There is no "in the park" picture worth that. There are some really disturbed people in the wild. One day, someone is going to run into one with a gun and nothing to lose. (Actually, it has already happened several times.)
Try quoting FAA laws to that crazy.... I doubt he will be impressed with your Journalistic or investigative skills.
Some folks like using 'worst case scenarios' to prove their arguments; that 'law card' is what keeps the population in line; you and 'fellow humans' are photographed 100 times a day yet you and John Q Public want to take issue when a simple quad is up 200 feet taking some scenic pics in public places because there just happens to be a couple of folks in the crowd of a hundred that don't want to be photographed which BTW at that height they would be unrecognizable--the 'laws' protect even those people whereas no surveillance and no posting of recognizable pics of them; etc--

I don't know the drone laws of 49 states; but I do know those laws for my state (strict) and I know the FAA regulations as they pertain to UAV flight--so if you don't want to photographed in public then don't go out into public because on your way to that 'drone park' across town; you have been photographed hundreds of times already and those pics ARE recognizable!

As far as your comment about instigating confrontation; I don't think anyone is doing that; another worse case scenario; but when a stranger does comes up and starts telling you that you are doing something wrong there is no recourse but to ignore him or educate them--in most cases I do the latter and in a case where they are the ones becoming belligerent then I choose the former--ignore them--and if they don't stop; I am the one calling the police--meanwhile a dozen diesel trucks and a line of Harley's just roared by us and I couldn't hear the stranger--but they didn't complain about that noise in a public place--hmmmm
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brojon
My standard reply if someone asks whether I'm filming them is always "no."
I usually do the same just to avoid conflict. Normally when the douches start walking up and yelling , I have my son call the cops because you will never win an argument or a debate with these people. Cops arrive and usually they talk to the douche first and I record it with my drone.

Then cops come ask questions about the douches actions. Any threats made, etc. I call the cops because I am armed and I would rather not get into an altercation while armed. It's best to avoid conflict. This has o ly happened about 5 times in the last 3 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Salty
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.
Dude Just Nicole is the captain of the drone police. Because she is a pilot. I remember another pilot calling her out on her bs a few months back. I had a good laugh.
 
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.
Don't pay attention to just Nicole she does this frequently.
 
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.
what states are those?

I dont know of any state that requires you to delete footage. i do know that if we catch people on camera, if we want to publish it we'd need a waiver, but what you shoot in public is usually yours.
 
No idea how US laws work but in the UK not even the police can demand you delete photos or video.
 
I've learnt something from this :cool:
when I get asked if I'm filming, I'll say no the camera bust (if they are bigger than me and if smaller, I'll tell them to bog off):)
 
Believe it or not, there are different laws for the legality of images/videos captured via a drone vs. images/videos captured via cell phone/DSLR, surveillance cam, or even a helicopter. Then there are exceptions if you're doing something like aerial mapping.

"Bottom line: know your local laws and be aware drones freak some people out.
"


As it stands, FAA supersedes any local law. I am doing a project, with support from the city and police, and spoke with the an FAA agent for zoning information near us in Santa Cruz county (as someone on the local counsel was considering attempting to introduce restrictions.) Bottom line? Only the FAA can set rules and laws for airspace in the United States. You may not want to be a big pain in the a%% but you are completely legal in flying and filming in a public park (as long as it is not State Park or other park that bars them, and is backed by the FAA).
 
As it stands, FAA supersedes any local law...Only the FAA can set rules and laws for airspace in the United States. You may not want to be a big pain in the a%% but you are completely legal in flying and filming in a public park (as long as it is not State Park or other park that bars them, and is backed by the FAA).

I believe the FAA has itself said the states are free to enact and enforce all kinds of laws that could affect drone use including trespass, invasion of privacy, harassment, voyeurism etc. which are all within the state's inherent police power to regulate. Steel Flyer was not kidding when he said NC law is tough. Check it out, they even throw thermal imaging into the mix:

North Carolina

§ 15A-300.1. Restrictions on use of unmanned aircraft systems.

(b) General Prohibitions. – Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person, entity, or State agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to do any of the following:

(1) Conduct surveillance of:

1. A person or a dwelling occupied by a person and that dwelling’s curtilage without the person’s consent.

2. Private real property without the consent of the owner, easement holder, or lessee of the property.

(2) Photograph an individual, without the individual’s consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating the photograph. This subdivision shall not apply to newsgathering, newsworthy events, or events or places to which the general public is invited.

****************************

(d) Limitations on Use of Special Imaging Technology. – Commercial and private unmanned aircraft systems may be equipped with infrared or other thermal imaging technology subject to the provisions of this subsection. Infrared or other similar thermal imaging technology equipment shall be for the sole purpose of scientific investigation; scientific research; mapping and evaluating the earth’s surface, including terrain and surface water bodies and other features; investigation or evaluation of crops, livestock, or farming operations; investigation of forests and forest management; and other similar investigations of vegetation or wildlife.

(e) Any person who is the subject of unwarranted surveillance, or whose photograph is taken in violation of the provisions of this section, shall have a civil cause of action against the person, entity, or State agency that conducts the surveillance or that uses an unmanned aircraft system to photograph for the purpose of publishing or otherwise disseminating the photograph. In lieu of actual damages, the person whose photograph is taken may elect to recover five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each photograph or video that is published or otherwise disseminated, as well as reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees and injunctive or other relief as determined by the court.

§ 14-280.3. Interference with manned aircraft by unmanned aircraft systems.

(a) Any person who willfully damages, disrupts the operation of, or otherwise interferes with a manned aircraft through use of an unmanned aircraft system, while the manned aircraft is taking off, landing, in flight, or otherwise in motion, is guilty of a Class H felony.

§ 14-401.25. Unlawful distribution of images.

It shall be a Class A1 misdemeanor to publish or disseminate, for any purpose, recorded images taken by a person or non-law enforcement entity through the use of infrared or other similar thermal imaging technology attached to an unmanned aircraft system, as defined in G.S. 15A-300.1, and revealing individuals, materials, or activities inside of a structure without the consent of the property owner.
 
I always come back to example of aerial banner. A federal court ruled that a city in Hawaii could regulate aerial banners because they could possibly distract drivers on the roads below. The court specifically said such an ordinance is not preempted or superseded by FAA authority to regulate aircraft or airspace.

upload_2018-9-10_17-48-15.png
 
"


As it stands, FAA supersedes any local law. I am doing a project, with support from the city and police, and spoke with the an FAA agent for zoning information near us in Santa Cruz county (as someone on the local counsel was considering attempting to introduce restrictions.) Bottom line? Only the FAA can set rules and laws for airspace in the United States. You may not want to be a big pain in the a%% but you are completely legal in flying and filming in a public park (as long as it is not State Park or other park that bars them, and is backed by the FAA).

This press release from the FAA may shed a little light on what their authority is. Bottom line? You are correct: The airspace is wide open (subject exclusively to FAA rules), but where you take off, land, and operate from are subject to local law. You can be cited for voyeurism or invasion of privacy - the FAA has nothing to do with that portion of droning.

Press Release – FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority
 
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.
 
LOL! The FAA is not lord over all people...

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).
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,272
Messages
1,561,504
Members
160,224
Latest member
whathesaid