Legality of someone photographing our propertry.

[ICHOTT]

ignoring the legalities of this flight for a moment, though I believe it is not illegal at all and they should worked with you on this by asking permission, what about the results?
You, OP, haven’t mentioned your surprise that the results could be correct and perhaps didn’t want anyone to find out about landfill or construction material!!!
In fact, have the survey done yourself and if it’s clear increase the selling price ?

for what it’s worth, your thread title is misleading, it wasnt just ‘someone’ and they weren’t ‘just photographing your property’, it was a potential buyer of a large area of land that you were selling IMHO

 

[Rpxz]

Is the property under contract?
If so, does the purchase agreement have any language specifying that the buyer reserves the right to have environmental surveys done at buyers expense?

You can see where I’m going with this. Any further questions need to be directed to your attorney, not to a drone forum.

 

[BobLaQ]

This is a very interesting discussion. Personally I would move on to a different buyer if possible, sounds like they could be more trouble down the road. Getting lawyers involved is always a pricey deal, charging be the hour. Good luck to you.

 

[Chip]

NEVADA STATE UAV AERIAL TRESPASS LAW (Looks like one free bite at the apple)

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.

 

[Bob4131]

This drone with ground penetrating radar is easy to find on the web. One of the uses is the ability to map infrastructure or disturbances under the ground. From what I read, it would appear it would have difficulty distinguishing between merely a hole dug and refilled with dirt vs a hole that had debris buried in it.
You could ask your lawyer that you are using to sell the property but I would think you have given the potential buyer rights to inspect your property. Similiar to someone doing a house inspection when buying a house.
I would wait and see how much less he wants to offer. Then accept or reject based on his offer independent of the reason for the reduction.
You could ask for the data - if he doesn't share then it sounds like this is merely a negotiation ploy - but you arguing over its validity will probably accomplish little.

 

[Kaydet]

Ground penetrating radar is a widely used technology and could have been what they used. Archaeologists use it to "see" structures under the surface of the earth. While I'm not familiar with this specific reference to "sonar-red", years ago I was an engineer on a team using sonar to penetrate the sea floor to identify likely petroleum deposits. The equipment to do that is very large and noisy (a KM long ship-towed sonar array).

 

[Donnie Frank]

Hey guys!
My name is Rj, I live in Las Vegas, Nevada. This is my first post on the forum and im super excited to be on here because I personally just bought a DJI Mavic Pro 2 for my first drone. \
Unfortunately, That's not what brings me here today. My family is selling a rather large plot of land in a place called Calico Basin, In Las Vegas.
We've been going back and forth with a potential buyer and today my mom just received this message.

This came as a huge shocker to us, and it sounds like hes trying to get us to lower the price.
My first question, DOES THIS TECHNOLOGY EVEN EXIST!? I have a buddy who flies for the United States Air Force and hes never even heard of such things.
My second question, Is this even legal? I understand that the airspace above our property does not belong to us. But taking readings/pictures without our knowledge or consent? that just sounds wrong.\

If someone has posted about this topic already, Im sorry. I searched and couldnt find anything similar.

Thank you so much for your time!

Sonar would require an audio source to touch the ground. This technology exists, but not in a drone. Did you mean RADAR?


D

 

[ICHOTT]

OP - so where are you, you’ve pondered a question but not come back . . . any update?

 

[Chip]

Anybody can take all the pictures of your property they want and there's nothing you can do about it.

Its best to check your state laws on this subject. Consider Texas law:

Sec. 423.003. OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person destroyed the image:

(1) as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of this section; and

(2) without disclosing, displaying, or distributing the image to a third party.

(d) In this section, “intent” has the meaning assigned by Section 6.03, Penal Code.

Sec. 423.004. OFFENSE: POSSESSION, DISCLOSURE, DISPLAY, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF IMAGE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) captures an image in violation of Section 423.003; and

(2) possesses, discloses, displays, distributes, or otherwise uses that image.

(b) An offense under this section for the possession of an image is a Class C misdemeanor. An offense under this section for the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of an image is a Class B misdemeanor.

(c) Each image a person possesses, discloses, displays, distributes, or otherwise uses in violation of this section is a separate offense.

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for the possession of an image that the person destroyed the image as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of Section 423.003.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of an image that the person stopped disclosing, displaying, distributing, or otherwise using the image as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of Section 423.003.

 

[sar104]

Its best to check your state laws on this subject. Consider Texas law:

Sec. 423.003. OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person destroyed the image:

(1) as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of this section; and

(2) without disclosing, displaying, or distributing the image to a third party.

(d) In this section, “intent” has the meaning assigned by Section 6.03, Penal Code.

Sec. 423.004. OFFENSE: POSSESSION, DISCLOSURE, DISPLAY, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF IMAGE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) captures an image in violation of Section 423.003; and

(2) possesses, discloses, displays, distributes, or otherwise uses that image.

(b) An offense under this section for the possession of an image is a Class C misdemeanor. An offense under this section for the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of an image is a Class B misdemeanor.

(c) Each image a person possesses, discloses, displays, distributes, or otherwise uses in violation of this section is a separate offense.

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for the possession of an image that the person destroyed the image as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of Section 423.003.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of an image that the person stopped disclosing, displaying, distributing, or otherwise using the image as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of Section 423.003.

But bear in mind that both those sections depend on "intent to conduct surveillance". Incidental images or video in the course of a flight are not offenses.

 

[Chip]

But bear in mind that both those sections depend on "intent to conduct surveillance". Incidental images or video in the course of a flight are not offenses.

Yes, meaning of surveillance is lynch pin. Incidental image capture should be excluded by definition. "Surveillance" is not defined in Texas UAV law but it is defined in similar Florida law:

1. With respect to an owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property, the observation of such persons with sufficient visual clarity to be able to obtain information about their identity, habits, conduct, movements, or whereabouts; or
2. With respect to privately owned real property, the observation of such property’s physical improvements with sufficient visual clarity to be able to determine unique identifying features or its occupancy by one or more persons.

I am thinking this may well cover ground or underground surveying. But who knows it seems like legal frontier!

 

[rjrupp]

Hey guys! Im really sorry about no update- My spam filter caught all the notification emails from this site and I thought I got left hanging lol. Will definitely be more active now!

So here's what happened, It all ended up being BS. The dude was just trying to get us to lower the price. We since called him on the bluff and he came up with some BS excuse and now things are at a standstill. My parents are super put off but if he has the cash to buy the property- then so be it. Last I heard they were gonna give him the cold shoulder for a few days and then resume talks.

This debacle had me do a lot of research and it's pretty insane the technology that Is available. Multiple companies here in Vegas do underground surveying but all of them have different techniques. Were thinking about having our own done just in case, so something like this doesn't happen again. Being that the property is on a hill im sure people will have questions about the foundation.

Ill post up the images and how the surveying companies do it when we get it done (potentially).


?

 

[rjrupp]

Here's a strart for ya!

UgCS - Drone flight planning software

UgCS drone mission planning and flight control software for complex UAV LiDAR or photogrammetry missions over large areas with terrain following. UgCS supported drones include DJI M350, M300, FreeFly, Inspired Flight, Ardupilot, and others from the Blue UAS list (NDAA-compliant drones).

www.ugcs.com

This was an incredible read.

 

[rjrupp]

For those who asked, Heres a shot of the house and the land. Its been in my family since you were allowed to build out there and only we have ever owned it.
There's no way we dumped anything or anything was there before we moved in.

This was also my first flight on my Mavic Pro 2.

 

[ICHOTT]

Cheers , hope it goes well when you sell, look forward to images etc as mentioned ?

 

[Kaydet]

For those who asked, Heres a shot of the house and the land. Its been in my family since you were allowed to build out there and only we have ever owned it.
There's no way we dumped anything or anything was there before we moved in.

This was also my first flight on my Mavic Pro 2.

View attachment 95133

Beautiful place! Best of luck with the sale!

 

[DoomMeister]

Hey guys! Im really sorry about no update- My spam filter caught all the notification emails from this site and I thought I got left hanging lol. Will definitely be more active now!

So here's what happened, It all ended up being BS. The dude was just trying to get us to lower the price. We since called him on the bluff and he came up with some BS excuse and now things are at a standstill. My parents are super put off but if he has the cash to buy the property- then so be it. Last I heard they were gonna give him the cold shoulder for a few days and then resume talks.

This debacle had me do a lot of research and it's pretty insane the technology that Is available. Multiple companies here in Vegas do underground surveying but all of them have different techniques. Were thinking about having our own done just in case, so something like this doesn't happen again. Being that the property is on a hill im sure people will have questions about the foundation.

Ill post up the images and how the surveying companies do it when we get it done (potentially).


?

Did you get a pair of those ‘sonar-red’ glasses to see through the smoke he was blowing?

 

[jhe888]

I don't know whether that technology exists. I don't know of any that could be carried by a drone.

I doubt seriously that it is illegal. They are not breaking the law by flying over your land, and seeing what they can see, even with enhanced seeing.

 

[Brandaloo]

Sure - specific acoustic impedance is the product of density and sound speed. When a sound wave meets a boundary separating two media of different acoustic impedance, the reflected energy scales with the difference in impedance. In the case of a sound wave in air ( low acoustic impedance) hitting the ground (much higher acoustic impedance), most of the energy is reflected, with relatively little transmitted. The same occurs in the reverse direction. So broadcasting sound waves from an airborne platform is a very inefficient way to couple them into the ground, or to detect reflections from sub-surface structures.

I guess you satisfied his question. Surprised he didn't respond since he was so eager to hear your answer.

 

[LazerMan]

I'm surprised no ones said anything about the so call 250' height limit the state of NV made up. Since the FAA controls the airspace from ground up and by law States, towns and what ever can't make up laws that counteract Federal Law. Just curious .