Legal implications of using self recorded public footage

[NorCalNavigator]

Hey everyone. Sorry if this has been addressed before but couldn't find much reference to it. I'm pretty new to droning and currently working on a website for a new business with a focus on marketing to local neighborhoods. Is there any issue with using footage from flying ~300-400' over a suburban part of town during the day (with a 107)? Mostly still shots looking down over different parts of town and short clips of flying forward facing the horizon with the neighborhood panning out below. There are no specific local laws addressing this that I'm aware of except the general right to privacy law but having footage of people walking below and being able to see into their yards has been making me a little nervous about using it. Have been flying from friend's properties and public right of way type places with no one in the immediate vicinity and trying not to hover in the airspace directly over stranger's houses or pedestrians. I'm trying to stay high enough so as not to be able to make out specific license plates on cars and similar although maybe with the right software someone could if they really tried. Also I don't think there are any naked people in the hot tub or anything like that lol. Am I overthinking this? Are there any other considerations I'm missing?

 

[Felix le Chat]

The laws in California may be very different to this side of the pond, so check your local statutes first... but in general: you should be covered by the incidental inclusion clause... unless your specific intent is to take a photograph of an individual or group, where you intend to use them as a photographic model in that particular environment, in which case you need to get a signed waiver from every person you consider to be a specific model.

Capturing images of people in a public environment is classified as "incidental inclusion" - spontaneous, candid, or street photography and as such: people don't need to be approached to sign a waiver... because their presence was incidental to the taking of the photograph.

The same applies to the incidental inclusion of either people, or properties in any photograph of streets or buildings within the frame you wish to capture.

If you're asking whether you are required to post printed notice of intent through every letterbox in the neighbourhood and get signed waivers from every Tom, Ricardo and Harriet window shopping or mooching about: that way lies madness and very sore feet.

 

[Cafguy]

Here in California You cannot film someone on their property without permission. People in public are fine. If you are just filming a flyby then you are good. NOW if you film someone and make that person or thier property the "Main Subject" of your video, Then you could be sued under the right of publicity rule. If what you are capturing is simply a fly-over or Background shot then you are perfectly fine. In order for someone to sue you under the right of publicity they MUST be the Main Subject of the Video and that video must be for monetary gain.
Example: Lets say you fly over Tom Hanks house. If your camera is pointed down and you happen to catch Tom swimming in his backyard as you flyover...You are fine. If you start filming him and narrating about Tom, ( making him the subject ) then He can sue you!

 

[Meta4]

Am I overthinking this?

Yes ... from 400 feet with a wideangle lens, any people would look like ants.
Most of the concerns mentioned above would be irrelevant.

 

[Felix le Chat]

ADDITIONAL

Just had a quick 30 second check with reputable on-line sources.

California Street Photography Laws

Read "California Street Photography Laws" on In The Streets blog

temp.inthestreets.co

Street photography in California is generally legal under the First Amendment, allowing photographers to capture images in public spaces without needing consent. However, photographers should be cautious of privacy laws and avoid photographing individuals in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as private property or sensitive areas.


Legal Framework for Street Photography in California

First Amendment Protections

Freedom of Expression: Street photography is generally protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Public Forum Doctrine: Public spaces like streets and parks have strong protections for photography.

Prior Restraint: The government cannot prevent you from taking photographs in public, except in limited circumstances.

California-Specific Laws

California Penal Code § 647(j): This law addresses privacy-related restrictions, particularly against surreptitious recording.
Expectation of Privacy: Individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces, allowing photography without consent.
Anti-Paparazzi Law: This law imposes restrictions on photography that invades personal privacy, especially concerning minors.


Practical Guidelines for Photographers

What is Generally Legal

Photographing people in public spaces without consent
Taking pictures from public sidewalks and parks
Capturing public events and demonstrations
Recording police officers in public

Areas Requiring Caution

Private property (requires permission)
Areas with a reasonable expectation of privacy
Sensitive government buildings
Commercial use of photographs without model releases.

...so not that much difference between our legal framework and yours.

 

[Meta4]

ADDITIONAL

Just had a quick 30 second check with reputable on-line sources.

California Street Photography Laws

Read "California Street Photography Laws" on In The Streets blog

temp.inthestreets.co

Street photography in California is generally legal under the First Amendment, allowing photographers to capture images in public spaces without needing consent. However, photographers should be cautious of privacy laws and avoid photographing individuals in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as private property or sensitive areas.


Legal Framework for Street Photography in California

First Amendment Protections

Freedom of Expression: Street photography is generally protected under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
Public Forum Doctrine: Public spaces like streets and parks have strong protections for photography.

Prior Restraint: The government cannot prevent you from taking photographs in public, except in limited circumstances.

California-Specific Laws

California Penal Code § 647(j): This law addresses privacy-related restrictions, particularly against surreptitious recording.
Expectation of Privacy: Individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces, allowing photography without consent.
Anti-Paparazzi Law: This law imposes restrictions on photography that invades personal privacy, especially concerning minors.


Practical Guidelines for Photographers

What is Generally Legal

Photographing people in public spaces without consent
Taking pictures from public sidewalks and parks
Capturing public events and demonstrations
Recording police officers in public

Areas Requiring Caution

Private property (requires permission)
Areas with a reasonable expectation of privacy
Sensitive government buildings
Commercial use of photographs without model releases.

...so not that much difference between our legal framework and yours.

That's fine at ground level, but irrelevant at 400 ft with a wideangle lens.

 

[Cafguy]

Not much difference really we just have more enforcement of the rule here. There are a few rare neighborhoods such as ones in Bel air and Culver that sending up a drone will get you surrounded by security and eventually the police will come and tell you to stop creating a hassle and go but these are the same ones that if you simply park your car and get out, someone is coming to ask you why..unless you drive a Bentley. There are actually a few towns in, and outside the L.A. area where drone are not allowed at all ( Anaheim, Lancaster ). Plus most towns within the L.A. area require you to contact the city and get a permit for 107 work. the police also seem to watch FPVers and recreational pilots alot more here.