Have you had a neighbor ask you to not fly over their property?

[marklyn]

I have to interject with something right now and you know what really just gives me the red *** that people would have to have the thinking process that you have. If the neighbor has asked you not to fly over his property and that is his right, why would you want to push it and slowly go on the edge of his property and act like a fool? Drone Flyers are already under the gun because of so many laws that are not known and so many educated people that are out there that just feel that drones are intrusive on other people's privacy and are just a general a nuisance and then we have someone like you who just wants to push it to the edge just to piss somebody off a little bit further. I think it's absolutely irresponsible on your thought process to even think of something like this. Through 360° on every compass and so that means that when you are flying away from your takeoff area you have many other places you can go to avoid this neighbor's property and I'm sure that's because I'm sure that your brother-in-law is not located in the center of this guy's property so there are other places you can go and there's other places he can just simply go around this guy's Mark property then he doesn't want trespassed against. If the guy makes a big deal about it he actually can't go to the police department and file a complaint against your brother-in-law and then they can have a big fat fine on his hands and then I guess you can thank you for being a jackass about it and making us who actually fly drones to look even more foolish because of irresponsible people. If your brother-in-law is acting responsible and just avoiding the guy's property and everything is fine and pieces kept between neighbors like it's supposed to then just leave it alone it's none of your business. And coming on this website and interjecting stuff like you're doing is just again irresponsible and downright foolish. I've been flying out for 6 months and I've never seen so many people act dumb but everybody in my neighborhood knows that I fly and I've gone to almost every single person around and asked if it's intrusive and they said sure go ahead and fly just don't linger around my window. So there's a nice ways of doing things and then there's stupid ways of doing things which is what you're doing by even suggesting that someone go on the prowl around this guy's property Edge and go real slow and being foolish. it's stupid people like this that gives me the red *** in this just dumb.
Have a nice day and please don't get a drone because you're probably give all of us, that are responsible pilots a bad name.

Wow. BigDaddy, I guess I thought I/we had some rights too and if he complies, wouldn't it be reasonable for him to fly "around" the 50'x50' fence line (if he chose to). He's not loitering, he's not pointing the drone/cam to his neighbor, he's just happening to cross the yard (around 100' up) on his way somewhere. You sure use the word stupid a lot, I get it though. Couldn't you have been nicer in making your point?

 

[FlyGuy8675309]

The SCOTUS has ruled people only have privacy over their property to 83 feet.

United States v. Causby - Wikipedia

LOL. Did you even read the article you linked to? It states the court decided that 365' was public domain and compensated the farmer for "using" his airspace from 83' to 365'. In other words, 83' is 282' too low, in their opinion.

 

[QuadKid]

You all need to ease up, the law says that a person has the reasonable expectancy of privacy when they have secluded themselves from the public eye such as within their homes, sanctuary's, dressing rooms, bathrooms ect.. flying within 100' of home / high rise windows is considered by most courts as an invasion of privacy as many flying cameras now have zoom features including the Mavic in 720 / 1080p mode.

It doesn't matter about your neighbors back yard, if the neighbor wants privacy for his back yard the he needs to "seclude" it from the public eye, people DO NOT own the airspace above their property, Ever hear of the Goodyear Blimp, Paparazzi or Telephoto Len's ?

The law defines the invasion of privacy as the INTENT to undermine the right of seclusion, every case is and will be different from the other, there will always be quad owners that will give a bad name to quad pilots, A/C pilots give discredit to the profession by buzzing tree tops at < 400' AGL in their Cessnas.

 

[Bazzam]

Actually, one of the worst things the drone community has done is consider themselves pilots or aviators, "Part 107 Certified " or not, drone operators/hobbyists/enthusiasts are not pilots.

Todd spent 10,000 $ + on a private airplane single engine pilot licence, Todd had dreams of a wonderful future.

Todd spent many hours berating and belittling UAV pilots on Mavic pilots forum, because they can experience what it is like to fly for a tiny fraction of his costs.

Todd's private airplane single engine pilot licence has expired, and with that, his dreams. Todd can now only fly the “toy” he despises.

Todd should learn to love his “toy” and stop being so bitter about his failed dreams.

We all wish Todd find happiness in the future !!

 

[westonmavicpilot]

A pervert copper last week was jailed for filming a couple having sex from his police heliocopter . Front so as much as the law, in at least the UK gives no one the right of light, air or a view, using a drone to be a peeping tom will land you in trouble. Any new law would be extremely hard to enforce as using a camera with telephoto lens would also need to be included. The Nikon Coolpix P900 has a built in 83x 2000mm lens. My wife uses one for wildlife photography. Check it out on Youtube. More intrusive than any drone. I am fortunate as I live on my 85 acre quite isolated farm. I will be using my drone to watch for the UK badger cull operates and where they hide the trapping cages, so that I can stop them from being used.

Great use of the drone - if that whole badger thing is starting up again I might do the same round my way.......

 

[westonmavicpilot]

I have to interject with something right now and you know what really just gives me the red *** that people would have to have the thinking process that you have. If the neighbor has asked you not to fly over his property and that is his right, why would you want to push it and slowly go on the edge of his property and act like a fool? Drone Flyers are already under the gun because of so many laws that are not known and so many educated people that are out there that just feel that drones are intrusive on other people's privacy and are just a general a nuisance and then we have someone like you who just wants to push it to the edge just to piss somebody off a little bit further. I think it's absolutely irresponsible on your thought process to even think of something like this. Through 360° on every compass and so that means that when you are flying away from your takeoff area you have many other places you can go to avoid this neighbor's property and I'm sure that's because I'm sure that your brother-in-law is not located in the center of this guy's property so there are other places you can go and there's other places he can just simply go around this guy's Mark property then he doesn't want trespassed against. If the guy makes a big deal about it he actually can't go to the police department and file a complaint against your brother-in-law and then they can have a big fat fine on his hands and then I guess you can thank you for being a jackass about it and making us who actually fly drones to look even more foolish because of irresponsible people. If your brother-in-law is acting responsible and just avoiding the guy's property and everything is fine and pieces kept between neighbors like it's supposed to then just leave it alone it's none of your business. And coming on this website and interjecting stuff like you're doing is just again irresponsible and downright foolish. I've been flying out for 6 months and I've never seen so many people act dumb but everybody in my neighborhood knows that I fly and I've gone to almost every single person around and asked if it's intrusive and they said sure go ahead and fly just don't linger around my window. So there's a nice ways of doing things and then there's stupid ways of doing things which is what you're doing by even suggesting that someone go on the prowl around this guy's property Edge and go real slow and being foolish. it's stupid people like this that gives me the red *** in this just dumb.
Have a nice day and please don't get a drone because you're probably give all of us, that are responsible pilots a bad name.

Thats a bit harsh BigDaddy, the guy was just asking for advice!!! It's a forum, people do that........

 

[Marines4Life]

In the United States you are allowed to fly over houses and through neighborhoods, there is no REP(reasonable expectation of privacy) in airspace. You invade REP and create problems when you hover in front of someone's window and begin recording or taking photos. This is one of those times where you apply common sense. I fly missions in my neighborhood sometimes and will continue to if I feel I should. If I'm not invading their REP, then I'm fine.

 

[cderoche]

I have to interject with something right now and you know what really just gives me the red *** that people would have to have the thinking process that you have. If the neighbor has asked you not to fly over his property and that is his right, why would you want to push it and slowly go on the edge of his property and act like a fool? Drone Flyers are already under the gun because of so many laws that are not known and so many educated people that are out there that just feel that drones are intrusive on other people's privacy and are just a general a nuisance and then we have someone like you who just wants to push it to the edge just to piss somebody off a little bit further. I think it's absolutely irresponsible on your thought process to even think of something like this. Through 360° on every compass and so that means that when you are flying away from your takeoff area you have many other places you can go to avoid this neighbor's property and I'm sure that's because I'm sure that your brother-in-law is not located in the center of this guy's property so there are other places you can go and there's other places he can just simply go around this guy's Mark property then he doesn't want trespassed against. If the guy makes a big deal about it he actually can't go to the police department and file a complaint against your brother-in-law and then they can have a big fat fine on his hands and then I guess you can thank you for being a jackass about it and making us who actually fly drones to look even more foolish because of irresponsible people. If your brother-in-law is acting responsible and just avoiding the guy's property and everything is fine and pieces kept between neighbors like it's supposed to then just leave it alone it's none of your business. And coming on this website and interjecting stuff like you're doing is just again irresponsible and downright foolish. I've been flying out for 6 months and I've never seen so many people act dumb but everybody in my neighborhood knows that I fly and I've gone to almost every single person around and asked if it's intrusive and they said sure go ahead and fly just don't linger around my window. So there's a nice ways of doing things and then there's stupid ways of doing things which is what you're doing by even suggesting that someone go on the prowl around this guy's property Edge and go real slow and being foolish. it's stupid people like this that gives me the red *** in this just dumb.
Have a nice day and please don't get a drone because you're probably give all of us, that are responsible pilots a bad name.

My father once caught a bullet with his bare hands...

 

[cderoche]

Wow. BigDaddy, I guess I thought I/we had some rights too and if he complies, wouldn't it be reasonable for him to fly "around" the 50'x50' fence line (if he chose to). He's not loitering, he's not pointing the drone/cam to his neighbor, he's just happening to cross the yard (around 100' up) on his way somewhere. You sure use the word stupid a lot, I get it though. Couldn't you have been nicer in making your point?

He's a big dumb prick. Look at the few posts he's made.

 

[cderoche]

It doesn't matter about your neighbors back yard, if the neighbor wants privacy for his back yard the he needs to "seclude" it from the public eye, people DO NOT own the airspace above their property, Ever hear of the Goodyear Blimp, Paparazzi or Telephoto Len's ?

It worked for Cheech and Chong!

 

[Vilco]

My brother-in-law who lives in Houston was asked by his neighbor to not fly over his property due to privacy concerns. Of course he's not video recording his neighbor nor lingering over his yard. He lives in a suburban area, lots of houses, yards. He just sometimes goes over the yard on a mission somewhere.

Your bro's been lucky, a friend of mine who's flown his phantom 3 over his neighbourhood many times in the last 2 years just got SUED by a neighbour seeking to make money from anything, even ppl flying drones around. The bad news is my friend couldn't fly over built areas, so hr risks something fee-wise, but for the privacy concerns it looks like he's good and should incur in no hassle. We'll see, he got notified of the plaint/plaintiff (sp?) just 2 months ago.

 

[jwjonesjr]

Idiot because he values his privacy? With the attitudes and comments here, it is no wonder so many people detest drones in their neighborhoods, and the inconsiderate, irresponsible operators who think their toy gives them unfettered and unchallenged access to the skies.

"Their toy"? Gimme a break!

 

[QuadKid]

Tallahassee, FL (WFLA) – A new law that takes effect today aimed at regulating drones when it comes to people’s privacy, may have some issues. The law states it is unlawful to use a drone to ‘capture an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance without his or her written consent.’

This was already tested here in FL, the case was dismissed because the defendant had no intent to "surveil" the property or people he was flying over. The law says if you hover for over 1 minute it is considered surveillance, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show hover > 1 minute.

Nuff said, going to keep on keep'in on

 

[cderoche]

Tallahassee, FL (WFLA) – A new law that takes effect today aimed at regulating drones when it comes to people’s privacy, may have some issues. The law states it is unlawful to use a drone to ‘capture an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance without his or her written consent.’

This was already tested here in FL, the case was dismissed because the defendant had no intent to "surveil" the property or people he was flying over. The law says if you hover for over 1 minute it is considered surveillance, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to show hover > 1 minute.

Nuff said, going to keep on keep'in on

Basically don't be a flying peeping tom.

 

[Doyleh13]

Actually, one of the worst things the drone community has done is consider themselves pilots or aviators, "Part 107 Certified " or not, drone operators/hobbyists/enthusiasts are not pilots.

If an operator/hobbyist/enthusiast isn't "piloting" the aircraft, then what term would you use? Driving? I am a licensed private pilot of 28 years and when I fly my drone, I am piloting it. That makes me the pilot. If I am "the" pilot, then I am "a" pilot. Webster's Dictionary says so, the FAA says so, so yes...pilot.

 

[bluntnose]

Some states have carved out a 250 foot altitude barrier. 1. Fly over your neighbor's property once, 2. get a letter saying don't do that, and 3. do it again = treble damages, plaintiff's attorney fees and costs. The exception is for locally registered ch 107 pilots operating for business purposes. Frankly I wouldn't want to see what your average jury thinks the damages should be. But we will find out, because some of the attitudes expressed in this thread make it a dead certainty that the lawsuits will come, and the law will be laid down.

Now close your eyes tight and repeat 3 times "We need a national quadcopter association to protect our rights."

Nevada:

NRS 493.103  Unmanned aerial vehicles: Action for trespass against owner or operator; exceptions; award of treble damages for injury to person or property; award of attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person who owns or lawfully occupies real property in this State may bring an action for trespass against the owner or operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle that is flown at a height of less than 250 feet over the property if:
(a) The owner or operator of the unmanned aerial vehicle has flown the unmanned aerial vehicle over the property at a height of less than 250 feet on at least one previous occasion; and
(b) The person who owns or occupies the real property notified the owner or operator of the unmanned aerial vehicle that the person did not authorize the flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle over the property at a height of less than 250 feet. For the purposes of this paragraph, a person may place the owner or operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle on notice in the manner prescribed in subsection 2 of NRS 207.200.
2.  A person may not bring an action pursuant to subsection 1 if:
(a) The unmanned aerial vehicle is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield or runway.
(b) The unmanned aerial vehicle is in the process of taking off or landing.
(c) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of:
(1) A law enforcement agency in accordance with NRS 493.112.
(2) A public agency in accordance with NRS 493.115.
(d) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of a business registered in this State or a land surveyor if:
(1) The operator is licensed or otherwise approved to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(2) The unmanned aerial vehicle is being operated within the scope of the lawful activities of the business or surveyor; and
(3) The operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle does not unreasonably interfere with the existing use of the real property.
3.  A plaintiff who prevails in an action for trespass brought pursuant to subsection 1 is entitled to recover treble damages for any injury to the person or the real property as the result of the trespass. In addition to the recovery of damages pursuant to this subsection, a plaintiff may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief.

 

[cderoche]

Some states have carved out a 250 foot altitude barrier. 1. Fly over your neighbor's property once, 2. get a letter saying don't do that, and 3. do it again = treble damages, plaintiff's attorney fees and costs. The exception is for locally registered ch 107 pilots operating for business purposes. Frankly I wouldn't want to see what your average jury thinks the damages should be. But we will find out, because some of the attitudes expressed in this thread make it a dead certainty that the lawsuits will come, and the law will be laid down.

Now close your eyes tight and repeat 3 times "We need a national quadcopter association to protect our rights."

Nevada:

NRS 493.103  Unmanned aerial vehicles: Action for trespass against owner or operator; exceptions; award of treble damages for injury to person or property; award of attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person who owns or lawfully occupies real property in this State may bring an action for trespass against the owner or operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle that is flown at a height of less than 250 feet over the property if:
(a) The owner or operator of the unmanned aerial vehicle has flown the unmanned aerial vehicle over the property at a height of less than 250 feet on at least one previous occasion; and
(b) The person who owns or occupies the real property notified the owner or operator of the unmanned aerial vehicle that the person did not authorize the flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle over the property at a height of less than 250 feet. For the purposes of this paragraph, a person may place the owner or operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle on notice in the manner prescribed in subsection 2 of NRS 207.200.
2.  A person may not bring an action pursuant to subsection 1 if:
(a) The unmanned aerial vehicle is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield or runway.
(b) The unmanned aerial vehicle is in the process of taking off or landing.
(c) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of:
(1) A law enforcement agency in accordance with NRS 493.112.
(2) A public agency in accordance with NRS 493.115.
(d) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of a business registered in this State or a land surveyor if:
(1) The operator is licensed or otherwise approved to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(2) The unmanned aerial vehicle is being operated within the scope of the lawful activities of the business or surveyor; and
(3) The operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle does not unreasonably interfere with the existing use of the real property.
3.  A plaintiff who prevails in an action for trespass brought pursuant to subsection 1 is entitled to recover treble damages for any injury to the person or the real property as the result of the trespass. In addition to the recovery of damages pursuant to this subsection, a plaintiff may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief.

This was also posted on another thread, so I thought it be appropriate to repost my reply here also:

I thought the FAA regulated airspace? Seems like a conflict at best. Hope the feds shoot any local ordinances down that look like this one. Plus how to prove 250 feet? Even the altimeter is pretty off on the quads themselves. You know what this smells of? Government wanting more tax money. I can see the UAS Permit offices sprouting up all over. Oh no! I can't fly my hobby sized quad anywhere, wait a minute, if I just file for a $150 permit no I'm "legal." Governments suck. Oh wait I missed this part:
(1) The operator is licensed or otherwise approved to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle by the Federal Aviation Administration;
That means anyone who registered their quad is authorized to fly. Seems like you're approved by the FAA. Which we are. There's the loophole.

 

[mp43sniper]

Best thing I ever did was show my neighbors what you see on the phone when flying.

"Well see, you're this thing here, and your daughter is this thing here, and that little blob is your dog. If I'm flying this way I can't even see your house, and it also depends on where I have the camera set because it might be looking right over it too."

Yes, on a computer you can actually see more detail but they went away happy and that was my goal.

 

[mp43sniper]

// If an operator/hobbyist/enthusiast isn't "piloting" the aircraft, then what term would you use?

Playing? It's a toy, after all. "I'm playing with my drone."

To me, "pilot" means someone inside an aircraft controlling it. Once they're in the air, their life is in danger. RC stick wanker is not a pilot.

I jump from airplanes and off of big mountains wearing a wingsuit, and although the term "wingsuit pilot" is common these days, to me it sounds funny as "piloting" my own body is nonsense. (I'm piloting this pilot which is myself?) Wingsuit flyer, wingsuit jumper - yes, but not pilot. It doesn't matter what the not-keeping-with-times Webster or we-want-to-control-everything FAA calls it; it's what makes sense.

If I'm playing with my drone when controlling it, are you playing with yourself in your wing suit?

 

[TheWolfen]

// If an operator/hobbyist/enthusiast isn't "piloting" the aircraft, then what term would you use?

Playing? It's a toy, after all. "I'm playing with my drone."

To me, "pilot" means someone inside an aircraft controlling it. Once they're in the air, their life is in danger. RC stick wanker is not a pilot.

I jump from airplanes and off of big mountains wearing a wingsuit, and although the term "wingsuit pilot" is common these days, to me it sounds funny as "piloting" my own body is nonsense. (I'm piloting this pilot which is myself?) Wingsuit flyer, wingsuit jumper - yes, but not pilot. It doesn't matter what the not-keeping-with-times Webster or we-want-to-control-everything FAA calls it; it's what makes sense.

I think the drone pilots in the military might disagree with you on that but who knows? [emoji6]

Seriously, though... I can't say I have a strong opinion on this subject. I'm not sure I've ever called myself a pilot although I do think technically we are. Semantics, I suppose. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter.