It seems to me that the Garden would have the right to require a permit IF photos taken from the air were to be used for "commercial" purposes. That does not necessarily mean sold for profit. Placed on the internet, even your own Facebook page would be included in that, just as if you were carrying your camera around on the ground.Have to agree with this one. Even a bad attorney could mop the floor with them on this one. The only thing I think they could get people on is they could restrict the launching and retrieval of a drone on their property. Once it’s in the air they have no legal say.
The Garden doesn't have that right and doesn't attempt to do that. The FAA controls flying through the National Airspace System.If the Garden has the right to declare in advance that any flight over its property by drone is a “commercial” endeavor requiring a special permit, then where does that leave us? If the Garden can do it, then can any private property owner?
Anyone that creates and displays ‘art’ can certainly make a copyright claim over likenesses of it and make a good faith effort to enact policies that govern licensing rights. The fact that you/we/someone are trying to capture it with a drone mounted camera, a DSLR, or a medium format rig makes no difference. I don’t think a property owner could do the same if they didn’t host copyrightable material on public display (say you wanted to fly over to capture the natural landscape for instance) or the artwork was old enough to be in the public domain (pre 1926). Buildings on the other hand (pre 1990) are fair use and you might be able to argue over government-created gardens/parks since gov (docs at least) are public domain. And again, if you can argue you are making fair use for private study, research, or are attempting to make social commentary, report news, or to create a substanativly different derivative work, you have a better legal case if it were to come to that. Gardens, arboretums, and cultural heritage sites have had these sorts of policies for years, many universities do as well. This one just happens to have updated theirs to the modern era. They aren’t saying no, they just want to control the media to some extent, ensure it’s safe for their patrons, and get their cut.If the Garden has the right to declare in advance that any flight over its property by drone is a “commercial” endeavor requiring a special permit, then where does that leave us? If the Garden can do it, then can any private property owner?
Don't promote nor bother with defectively run business's, its better to ignore them so they rapidly go out of business. Since only the truly defective publish the fact publicly on a sign that they punish all for the sins of no one.To what extent are private businesses, parks, gardens, etc. allowed to restrict the airspace above their property? In St. Louis the Missouri Botanical Gardens has this notice under their "Photo Policy":
Are they talking about very low level flights or are they restricting all drone activity over their property? And can they do that?
I have to disagree about private property in general, the FAA considers drones to be aircraft. So to prevent a drone from flying over someone's private property, they would have to ban any private aircraft from flying over it. There are huge swaths of private property meaning that commercial airlines wouldn't be able to take a straight course because some landowner in Texas decided to say no aircraft over his property and he owns a few thousand acres. And the FAA is being lobbied now to allow drone delivery, which means they can't just reclassify UAS and say those can't go over private property without impacting future rules regarding commercial drone use.My feeling is that flying over private property should not be allowed without the land owner's permission. This may seem ridiculous to some, however, to others, it is a privacy issues. I don't have an opinion as to what happens on public property, but I wouldn't want another person's drone flying over our property - especially taking photos and video. I think to respect another's property is a good thing for the drone industry/hobby. I'm in favor of shedding a positive light on drone use and IMHO respecting the wishes of the property owner seems to me a good idea. Enough property owners get ticked, and we are liable to see some sort of legislative action that could unleash a whole can of worms restricting drone use way beyond flying over private property.
Just my thoughts...
Agreed. There are laws and then there is being a decent human.Thought experiment: it’s 2023 and you have one of the new mavics with a 2 hour battery. You decide to fly over a drive in movie theater, launching from outside the gates, point the camera at the screen and start recording the new He Man movie. The battery fails at 1:45 because it’s cold, it falls and strikes a kid who’s parents sue the theater owners for failure to anticipate your actions. Regardless of your intent to post to YouTube or keep a copy at home for your own private entertainment this is the basic deal. They are making a licensing and safety claim. Don’t abid by these things if that’s your jam but it will further erode relationships and good will with the public.
Oh I like these... so I'll bite on this bait...Thought experiment: it’s 2023 and you have one of the new mavics with a 2 hour battery. You decide to fly over a drive in movie theater, launching from outside the gates, point the camera at the screen and start recording the new He Man movie. The battery fails at 1:45 because it’s cold, it falls and strikes a kid who’s parents sue the theater owners for failure to anticipate your actions. Regardless of your intent to post to YouTube or keep a copy at home for your own private entertainment this is the basic deal. They are making a licensing and safety claim. Don’t abid by these things if that’s your jam but it will further erode relationships and good will with the public.
Funny part is, My Mini 2 is at least twice as loud as my MA2S. I track the mini by sound even at 500', and I completely lose the sound of my A2S by 300'. There are 2 issues in the OP, one, flying over private property, and two, photographing a work of art that the owner says "Please do not do". I agree to work with the Garden if that's what you want to photograph, but their rules aren't law.Agreed. There are laws and then there is being a decent human.
Edit: expanding my thoughts.
If I was at the garden enjoying the day with my family I would not want a drone buzzing around overhead. Even at 300ft up I can easily hear my Mini 2 It would be worse with a larger drone or one at a lower altitude.
We are all ambassadors for this relatively new hobby. I implore us to be better than “just the law”.
Really? Is that why they don't restrict photography UNLESS it is by drone? If it is a "no photography" area, then I say 100% you have to abide by that, but if they allow a hot air balloon to fly overhead, and the operators can take all of the photos they want and the posted rules allow for it, then it is simply an anti-drone rule. So still 2 issues, flying over, they have no legal say, and since you can walk in and take 100 photos of it and post it all over the place, they aren't concerned about their intellectual property either, and even if they were, as long as you don't use it commercially they have no legal footing since they don't care about you using a Cannon EOS.Your over thinking it. My point is that these sorts of polices are incredibly common for photography at gardens all over the U.S. The drone doesn’t matter. The actual policy makes it clear they want some say in the matter, they want you insured, and they want to be paid because (in their view) the grounds contain their intellectual property.
We already have a niche. UAV laws are different than helicopter laws, than hot air balloon laws, etc. Specificity and nuance in law – applicable to countries and situations – are already the norm.We risk the problem, if we carve a niche out for ourselves that is completely different than any other aircraft, we could lose all of the protections provided by being an aircraft.
How is that?
There are nuances, but my point is we are considered aircraft. If you want to argue that you should only fly over land you have authorization, even though every other aircraft can fly over it, just not drones, then we shouldn't be able to fly over public property without authorization either. Why? Because the public is there to use it, and they would have the same expectation of privacy on public land as they do in their unfenced front yard. And as other posts have pointed out, a guy was flying 125' over his own 10 acre parcel, and his neighbor came out screaming at him, he wasn't over someone else's property, over his own, yet the neighbor told him he wasn't allowed to do that. So by that logic, you need a 1000' buffer between private property border and a flight, and most people do not have access to acreage like that unless it is public or commercial.We already have a niche. UAV laws are different than helicopter laws, than hot air balloon laws, etc. Specificity and nuance in law – applicable to countries and situations – are already the norm.