Legality of someone photographing our propertry.

[DoomMeister]

Come on people, let’s not get into any more of a squabble over such a minor detail. Any more of this and the thread will be closed. I’m going to cleanup the thread, so please remain on topic.

 

[TriadX1]

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! I wish I could make you an offer for the property!

 

[FLHue18569]

Anyone with these capabilities if accurate could make a killing in Florida. I live in the Land O Lakes area right outside of Tampa and we have some major sinkhole issues here. When we relocated from out of state that was on the top of our list for concerns.

 

[CactusJackSlade]

After re-reading the letter you received from the offering party I'd say that they may have legitimate concerns, but the way the letter reads I do indeed think it is a way for them to haggle with price. If so, move on to next offering party... BTW, we like that area, how much are you asking!

 

[AaronRN]

There is absolutely nothing illegal about photographing someones property.

I am wondering if we are addressing more than one issue. Photographing in any commercial category in Washington state requires commercial licensing plus FAA piloting license. You could request the drone pilots licensing and check if there are any restricted air space limitations. In 2017 there were some news articles about law enforcement could not use drones to look into someone’s property without a search warrant. Lots of debate about the appropriate laws and whether new regulations had to be state or federal. I have no expertise just sharing some thoughts.

 

[CGWYl1]

There is absolutely nothing illegal about photographing someones property.

Actually SOME properties(likely very few) are registered, like the Hurst Estate & pictures of any kind (personal or business) are not allowed unless sanctioned.

 

[DoomMeister]

Actually SOME properties(likely very few) are registered, like the Hurst Estate & pictures of any kind (personal or business) are not allowed unless sanctioned.

So if you are rich enough special rules are in place because you are exalted above the common folk. How quaint! I can see if you are on their property they have the right to forbid photography, but if you are on public property and take a photograph of theirs it would be no different than any other person’s property.

I may be full of hot air, but these types of scenarios should be the same regardless of a person’s status or position.

 

[Meta4]

So if you are rich enough special rules are in place because you are exalted above the common folk. How quaint!

That's not how it works and photography is not prohibited at Hearst Castle, but there are some restrictions.

Hearst Castle Photography Guidelines - Hearst Castle

Personal Photography Photography for personal enjoyment is encouraged. However, due to operational impacts, photography related to birthdays, engagements, weddings, graduations, etc. is prohibited. Tripods are not allowed either inside the buildings or on the grounds, but monopods are in both...

hearstcastle.org

 

[CGWYl1]

So if you are rich enough special rules are in place because you are exalted above the common folk. How quaint! I can see if you are on their property they have the right to forbid photography, but if you are on public property and take a photograph of theirs it would be no different than any other person’s property.

I may be full of hot air, but these types of scenarios should be the same regardless of a person’s status or position.

More of a corporate branding issue than personal I think but pretty much, yup.

 

[DoomMeister]

Could not get the link to hearstcastle.org to work, but from other sources it seems using images of the property need permission for commercial purposes. That is a normal thing and seems to be limited to photos/videos being captured from on property.

Images captured from public property and not for commercial uses should not be subject to these restrictions. If they are then there is a double standard in effect and it should be removed.