Ignoring no fly zones.

[mavic3usa]

Not widely understood but factual nonetheless local authorities DO have jurisdiction over what you do with a camera, regardless of whether it's in your hands, mounted on a pole, or a drone.

Local laws regulating surveillance activities are entirely legal and enforceable. A city has the authority to prohibit photographs or video of any area. Visitors with a Nikon can, and have been fined for taking pictures where prohibited. The camera being on a drone makes no difference.

So, while can not control where you fly, they can control what you do with the camera. A local authority can prohibit any live view FROM A CAMERA on a drone flying over areas they have control of. FAA jurisdiction only saves you here if you're flying an aircraft without transmitting any imagery, but being flown strictly VLOS.

This is a twisty loophole in the tapestry of law and regulation w.r.t. hobby RC aircraft, a few locals have figured this out, ordinances restricting imagery taken above a certain height over the ground (the ones I've seen discussed are usually 30ft), saying nothing about flying.

Don't forget there's a pesky thing called the First Amendment.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Are you suggesting this would apply even to a drone like the NEO? Even if you were to hit someone with it, has to be a freak accident for someone to actually get seriously hurt.

Quantitative Physics analysis below.

135g with relatively sharp edges at 30mph can easily blind you hitting you in the eyes. It can tear a pretty major gash across your scalp, requiring stitches, and bleeding profusely. It can permanently alter your voice, ruining the ability to sing, and if that was your profession, devastating and financially enormously costly.

Any of these injuries would be considered "major" by most of us. Further, the gravity of any injury is not uniform. Causing a hemophiliac to bleed can be life life-threatening. Blinding a one-eyed man in his good eye would be life-devastating.

This is not about probabilities. Those scenarios are, of course extremely unlikely. However the issue is about people, not risk.

Finally, people who do not consider such possibilities, but rather casually dismiss risk based on a shallow, brief analysis based just on the weight of the drone, are likely to be just as casually reckless flying around people because they've convinced there is no meaningful risk due to the weight.

By The Numbers
For the physics literate: The Neo carries 16.4K joules of energy at 35mph. The Avata 2 carries the same at 20mph. A hit by a 377g Avata 2 at 20mph is going to at the very least leave a mark, and depending on the collision, cause permanent injury.

Finally, because the area of the direct impact will be smaller with the Neo, the Specific Impulse at the collision point will be larger, increasing the force of the impact. Like plowing into someone's eye with the edge of prop duct. Because of this, it's possible for the Neo to deliver more force and damage at the point of impact, even when carrying the same kinetic energy, than the Avata 2.

 

[Dronecation]

Quantitative Physics analysis below.

135g with relatively sharp edges at 30mph can easily blind you hitting you in the eyes. It can tear a pretty major gash across your scalp, requiring stitches, and bleeding profusely. It can permanently alter your voice, ruining the ability to sing, and if that was your profession, devastating and financially enormously costly.

Any of these injuries would be considered "major" by most of us. Further, the gravity of any injury is not uniform. Causing a hemophiliac to bleed can be life life-threatening. Blinding a one-eyed man in his good eye would be life-devastating.

This is not about probabilities. Those scenarios are, of course extremely unlikely. However the issue is about people, not risk.

Finally, people who do not consider such possibilities, but rather casually dismiss risk based on a shallow, brief analysis based just on the weight of the drone, are likely to be just as casually reckless flying around people because they've convinced there is no meaningful risk due to the weight.

By The Numbers
For the physics literate: The Neo carries 16.4K joules of energy at 35mph. The Avata 2 carries the same at 20mph. A hit by a 377g Avata 2 at 20mph is going to at the very least leave a mark, and depending on the collision, cause permanent injury.

Finally, because the area of the direct impact will be smaller with the Neo, the Specific Impulse at the collision point will be larger, increasing the force of the impact. Like plowing into someone's eye with the edge of prop duct. Because of this, it's possible for the Neo to deliver more force and damage at the point of impact, even when carrying the same kinetic energy, than the Avata 2.

I wonder why they didn't tell the fans to take cover or duck:
A Green Day concert in Detroit was suddenly interrupted by security after a drone was discovered flying overhead.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/detroit-green-day-concert-disrupted-due-to-drone-sighting-1.7314063

 

[Droning on and on...]

YES it is! who judges what a "gathering" is really too BUT the sad thing is these things happen in our society because these things happen to the "thems" and not to the "us'es" no one learns from history.

Well just to be balanced on this a bit, such messy laws come into being usually because there are other constituents that are complaining about something in large enough numbers to get the attention of lawmakers, who try to do exactly what they're supposed to do, but the issue doesn't have a clear, easy solution.

What's the right neighborhood speed limit? 25mph? 30? Fewer people are killed or seriously injured at 25. None are at 0. What is the "correct" number of deaths to tolerate?

If we were all robots that thought, behaved, and valued everything the same, lawmaking would be easy.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Having an RC car Grand prix in your neighborhood. (boy they don't like that)

Are you perhaps speaking from direct experience on that as part of the "nuisance"? No need to answer publicly, PM is fine

More wayback machine for me... late seventies, analog RC. We had almost as much fun irritating the neighborhood Karens as we did racing.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Don't forget there's a pesky thing called the First Amendment.

There is no protection in the first amendment for taking pictures. This is why you can be prohibited from taking pictures at a playground. And lots and lots of other places.

The first amendment is about expression.

 

[Cafguy]

Are you perhaps speaking from direct experience on that as part of the "nuisance"? No need to answer publicly, PM is fine

More wayback machine for me... late seventies, analog RC. We had almost as much fun irritating the neighborhood Karens as we did racing.

I had to include one personal experience lol nope I don't know CAKE lol it was just playing in the Background..We have a little island on our street that used to be perfect to race around with tiny RC Cars until the Police decided that the one car that uses the street per hour might hit and kill one of us. Electrics too NO nitro.

 

[mavic3usa]

Quantitative Physics analysis below.

135g with relatively sharp edges at 30mph can easily blind you hitting you in the eyes. It can tear a pretty major gash across your scalp, requiring stitches, and bleeding profusely. It can permanently alter your voice, ruining the ability to sing, and if that was your profession, devastating and financially enormously costly.

Any of these injuries would be considered "major" by most of us. Further, the gravity of any injury is not uniform. Causing a hemophiliac to bleed can be life life-threatening. Blinding a one-eyed man in his good eye would be life-devastating.

This is not about probabilities. Those scenarios are, of course extremely unlikely. However the issue is about people, not risk.

Finally, people who do not consider such possibilities, but rather casually dismiss risk based on a shallow, brief analysis based just on the weight of the drone, are likely to be just as casually reckless flying around people because they've convinced there is no meaningful risk due to the weight.

By The Numbers
For the physics literate: The Neo carries 16.4K joules of energy at 35mph. The Avata 2 carries the same at 20mph. A hit by a 377g Avata 2 at 20mph is going to at the very least leave a mark, and depending on the collision, cause permanent injury.

Finally, because the area of the direct impact will be smaller with the Neo, the Specific Impulse at the collision point will be larger, increasing the force of the impact. Like plowing into someone's eye with the edge of prop duct. Because of this, it's possible for the Neo to deliver more force and damage at the point of impact, even when carrying the same kinetic energy, than the Avata 2.

Is the NEO a category 1 drone according to the FAA?

 

[mavic3usa]

There is no protection in the first amendment for taking pictures. This is why you can be prohibited from taking pictures at a playground. And lots and lots of other places.

The first amendment is about expression.

Prohibited by whom? Yes a private property owner can stop you from taking pictures while you are on his property but there's nothing he can do if you *not* on his property. And if you are on his property taking pictures (such as in a Walmart) then they can trespass you but they can't stop you from taking the pictures if that property is open to the public. The government can stop you from taking pictures if you are in a restricted area and you have been properly notified but if you are on public property then they cannot. There are few exceptions like military, etc. Obviously if you go into a private museum which has rare paintings and they tell you at the door, no photos or else no entry, otherwise yes you could be committing a crime. What does this mean? Pretty much anywhere you can fly a drone legally, you can take pictures and video legally using that drone regardless (with few rare exceptions because everything is not absolute). I mention this with a ordinary photographer focus because even as you said before, it shouldn't matter if the camera is in your hand or up in the air.

You and I will just have to disagree if taking pictures and video is a right protected by the First Amendment. It's an ongoing battle we will always have to fight because there are too many people who either don't understand the Constitution or don't believe in it. As far as I know, there isn't anyone alive who can stop me from taking a picture of a public playground while I am standing on public property; would love to see them try.

These are my lawyers who side with me and the people and I am hoping one day they have enough drone experience to take on our cases should they arise:

The First Amendment and Photography in Public Spaces: Navigating Rights and Responsibilities

In the age of smartphones and social media, photography has become a ubiquitous part of everyday life, raising important questions about legal rights in public...

johndrogerslaw.com

Photographers' Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

www.aclu.org

First Amendment Audits: Definition, Examples and More

You might see First Amendment audits pop up on YouTube and TikTok. But what are they? We answer that, and much more, in this guide.

www.freedomforum.org

The photographer and the law: Tips for photographing and recording in public spaces - Investigative Reporters & Editors

By Christina Animashaun In the late 1800s, the invention of Kodak’s Brownie changed the landscape of photography. The cardboard box camera was simple to use, inexpensive and gave ordinary people […]

www.ire.org

WSG Article: No Matter What You Think - The Taking of Photographs is Entitled to First Amendment Protection - Haynes and Boone, LLP

Finding that the taking of photography is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as photographs themselves, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down the state's

www.worldservicesgroup.com

Even the police know it:

https://pars.lasd.org/Viewer/Manuals/10008/Content/10397

 

[davidarmenb]

I really really wish the Los Angeles Municipal Code designation was legible underneath the sign.

 

[AMann]

They are using LAMC 63.44.B.8; 56.31(b)(1)
Looks like they copied FAA’s rules on some of these ordinances but mistakenly didn’t update some recent FAA changes such as the 5-mile limit of flights near airports and requiring air control permission (instead of the recent LAANC authorization updates), among others.

For the benefit of beginning pilots here, any local or State government like the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks can legally enforce a No Drone Zones on their property (not over it). The FAA does recognize that local governments have the right to enforce a No Drone Zone, but it can only restrict an operator from controlling a drone and taking off or landing it on their property. They do not control flight in the airspace above it.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/community_engagement/no_drone_zone

More detailed: https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/policy_library/UAS_Fact_Sheet_2023.pdf

 

[mavic3usa]

They are using LAMC 63.44.B.8; 56.31(b)(1)
Looks like they are copying FAA’s rules on some of them but mistakenly didn’t update some such as the 5-mile limit of flights near airports and requiring air control permission (instead of the recent LAANC authorization updates), among others.

Sadly, that ordinance is unenforceable. Even if it were updated to today's standard, it's not their place to enforce those regulations.

View attachment 177500

For the benefit of beginning pilots here, any local or State government like the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks can legally enforce a No Drone Zones on their property (not over it). The FAA does recognize that local governments have the right to enforce a No Drone Zone, but it can only restrict an operator from controlling a drone and taking off or landing it on their property. They do not control flight in the airspace above it.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/community_engagement/no_drone_zone

It's funny how they left out the "approved" verbiage recommended by the faa; why is that? i believe it is because they want to pretend they control not only take-off/landing but also drones in flight.

I'm starting to wonder when the discussion will revert to "operating a UAV" as in the pilot in control of a UAV while standing on government-controlled land. Can't wait for the legal discussion to take that turn because we all know if the authorities didn't see your drone take-off from their land and they order you to land on their land, at that point there's nothing legal they can do.

Until then we'll just have to deal with a mess created by laws created and enforced for all the wrong reasons; everybody loses.

 

[AMann]

Sadly, that ordinance is unenforceable. Even if it were updated to today's standard, it's not their place to enforce those regulations.



It's funny how they left out the "approved" verbiage recommended by the faa; why is that? i believe it is because they want to pretend they control not only take-off/landing but also drones in flight.

I'm starting to wonder when the discussion will revert to "operating a UAV" as in the pilot in control of a UAV while standing on government-controlled land. Can't wait for the legal discussion to take that turn because we all know if the authorities didn't see your drone take-off from their land and they order you to land on their land, at that point there's nothing legal they can do.

Until then we'll just have to deal with a mess created by laws created and enforced for all the wrong reasons; everybody loses.

You are right- they copied and adopted some of the rules that only the FAA is responsible for. And some are older ones (like the ones written prior to recent LAANC and night flying rules).

It wouldn’t hurt to carry a copy of those two FAA docs I posted above if flying over or from near a No Drone Zone - they would be useful information to share with a LEO or Karen contact - assuming they want to look at it.

 

[DARKSeifer]

By The Numbers
For the physics literate: The Neo carries 16.4K joules of energy at 35mph. The Avata 2 carries the same at 20mph. A hit by a 377g Avata 2 at 20mph is going to at the very least leave a mark, and depending on the collision, cause permanent injury.

16.4K joules a Neo?

A Neo weights 135g and can fly at a maximum of 8m/s in Sport mode. That's 4.3 joules, which is basically nothing unless you strap razor blades to it.

Cars kill pedestrians every day, yet they can move in close vicinity of people, drones haven't killed anyone yet because they just don't have enough mass to cause anything significant, specially <250g drones.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Prohibited by whom? Yes a private property owner can stop you from taking pictures while you are on his property but there's nothing he can do if you *not* on his property. And if you are on his property taking pictures (such as in a Walmart) then they can trespass you but they can't stop you from taking the pictures if that property is open to the public. The government can stop you from taking pictures if you are in a restricted area and you have been properly notified but if you are on public property then they cannot. There are few exceptions like military, etc. Obviously if you go into a private museum which has rare paintings and they tell you at the door, no photos or else no entry, otherwise yes you could be committing a crime. What does this mean? Pretty much anywhere you can fly a drone legally, you can take pictures and video legally using that drone regardless (with few rare exceptions because everything is not absolute). I mention this with a ordinary photographer focus because even as you said before, it shouldn't matter if the camera is in your hand or up in the air.

You and I will just have to disagree if taking pictures and video is a right protected by the First Amendment. It's an ongoing battle we will always have to fight because there are too many people who either don't understand the Constitution or don't believe in it. As far as I know, there isn't anyone alive who can stop me from taking a picture of a public playground while I am standing on public property; would love to see them try.

These are my lawyers who side with me and the people and I am hoping one day they have enough drone experience to take on our cases should they arise:

The First Amendment and Photography in Public Spaces: Navigating Rights and Responsibilities

In the age of smartphones and social media, photography has become a ubiquitous part of everyday life, raising important questions about legal rights in public...

johndrogerslaw.com

Photographers' Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU works in courts, legislatures, and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and the laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

www.aclu.org

First Amendment Audits: Definition, Examples and More

You might see First Amendment audits pop up on YouTube and TikTok. But what are they? We answer that, and much more, in this guide.

www.freedomforum.org

The photographer and the law: Tips for photographing and recording in public spaces - Investigative Reporters & Editors

By Christina Animashaun In the late 1800s, the invention of Kodak’s Brownie changed the landscape of photography. The cardboard box camera was simple to use, inexpensive and gave ordinary people […]

www.ire.org

WSG Article: No Matter What You Think - The Taking of Photographs is Entitled to First Amendment Protection - Haynes and Boone, LLP

Finding that the taking of photography is entitled to the same First Amendment protection as photographs themselves, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down the state's

www.worldservicesgroup.com

Even the police know it:

https://pars.lasd.org/Viewer/Manuals/10008/Content/10397

TL;DR. Mostly because I didn't need to. The factual, counter-response is this: Can you stand outside a prison on public land and take pictures of the prison? The guard towers? Fences, gates, close-ups of the doors and locks, video of the patrol patterns, etc.?

Standing in the same spot, can you pontificate to your heart's content to a crowd of people how evil the gubmint is?

One of those actions can not be constrained by government. The other can, and is at most prison facilities. Taking pictures is not covered by the first amendment.

Don't confuse this with how you express yourself with pictures you have taken, which is protected.

 

[Droning on and on...]

For the benefit of beginning pilots here, any local or State government like the Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks can legally enforce a No Drone Zones on their property (not over it). The FAA does recognize that local governments have the right to enforce a No Drone Zone, but it can only restrict an operator from controlling a drone and taking off or landing it on their property. They do not control flight in the airspace above it.

Combined with FAA VLOS requirements, this often makes flying over the park from an outside TOAL completely impractical, effectively banning drone flights over the park.

So locals really do, in effect, have some real control over airspace that you can fly in, if indirectly.

 

[talpiot]

There is no protection in the first amendment for taking pictures. This is why you can be prohibited from taking pictures at a playground. And lots and lots of other places.

The first amendment is about expression.

No. There are no limits on PUBLIC SPACE PHOTOGRAPHY. It is a matter of context, intent, and circumstances that leads to an investigation by a relevant authority.

 

[Droning on and on...]

16.4K joules a Neo?

You're right, it's 16.6J... I forgot that J is kg based, not fundamental SI units.

That said, doesn't change the qualitative aspect of the analysis... A Neo hitting you at 35mph imparts the same energy as an Avata 2 at 20mph, in a potentially smaller contact patch with a correspondingly higher specific Impulse.

Are you unconcerned about an Avata 2 striking someone in the face horizontally at 20mph?

Same question for a Neo at 35...

 

[Droning on and on...]

No. There are no limits on PUBLIC SPACE PHOTOGRAPHY. It is a matter of context, intent, and circumstances that leads to an investigation by a relevant authority.

Because society hasn't passed any. The question was about constitutionally protected rights, not what is currently allowed.

Just as you do not have a right to own and operate a motor vehicle, you have no right to own a camera and take pictures.

Should a state decide to ban cameras, make ownership illegal and punishable, and outlaw taking photographs, they certainly can.

You have no more right to a camera than you do to an Internal Combustion Engine powered leaf blower, which have been banned in CA. There aren't battery-powered blowers in Home Depot in CA because you have a right to leaf blowers... It's because the public would not accept such a ban.

Just as when, how, and where a leaf blower is used can be strictly regulated, so can a camera. And they are. Prisons. Government buildings. Military bases. To cite a few examples.

In contrast, your speech on public areas outside these facilities can not be regulated, no matter how much the authorities might not like you or what you're saying.

 

[mavic3usa]

Can you stand outside a prison on public land and take pictures of the prison? The guard towers? Fences, gates, close-ups of the doors and locks, video of the patrol patterns, etc.?


One of those actions can not be constrained by government. The other can, and is at most prison facilities. Taking pictures is not covered by the first amendment.

Don't confuse this with how you express yourself with pictures you have taken, which is protected.

No. There are no limits on PUBLIC SPACE PHOTOGRAPHY. It is a matter of context, intent, and circumstances that leads to an investigation by a relevant authority.

He's never going to be convinced, I wouldn't even try.....

I've explained it before and at this point, it's going to take *his* lawyer to explain it to him, someone he trusts to give him the correct answers. The First Amendment guarantees a free press and anyone who picks up a camera and takes a photo from a legal place where they are allowed to be and records or photographs anything that could be construed in the interest of public (with very very narrow exceptions...we covered them before, secret missiles, kids undress in a changing room, etc) and especially if they are recording their government in the course of their duties or people or places where people have no expectation of privacy, they *are* the "press" (as defined by recent court cases) and they are protected (which means you cannot re-label their activities as suspicious or disturbing the peace or disorderly)....we know those tricks. And, it applies to drones (camera in the air), too.