What is legal or illegal?

[tca]

Is there any difference in [1] a person standing in the street taking a photo of someone's house

or [2] a person flying over a person's home taking a photo with a drone?



I know that number 1 is legal but what about number 2 and if it isn't what law would a

person be breaking?



Just curious....

 

[BigAl07]

If the drone is being operated "legally" then it's legal. Depends on where you're flying and could ALSO depend on where you, the drone OPERATOR, is standing.

 

[BigAl07]

Since you're in the USA the FAA Regulations are at the top of the ladder but you also need to know any local/State laws/regulations. The FAA controls the AIRSPACE but you are standing on LAND and you also may have some Privacy and Safety Laws that come into play.

Here's the FAA Recreational Rules:

Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

www.faa.gov

 

[vindibona1]

I think much depends on the region and/or locality. There are shades of gray everywhere. But I think the general standard, if not codified at this time is 1) "a reasonable expectation of privacy". 2) Not being signifcantly deprived of the enjoyment of their property. If nothing else, as pilots with camera capabilities, I think being thoughtful, respectful and considerate will help the community. It only takes one or two inconsiderate idiots to ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[maelstrom]

Is there any difference in [1] a person standing in the street taking a photo of someone's house

or [2] a person flying over a person's home taking a photo with a drone?

I know that number 1 is legal but what about number 2 and if it isn't what law would a

person be breaking?

Privacy considerations aside, as others have said it depends on where you're flying. In the UK for example, you can't fly closer than 50m (horizontally or vertically) from an isolated building. If the building is in a built up area, you then can't fly closer than 150m horizontally and it can't be overflown at any height. These regulations are controlled by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

 

[Grimm]

From an FAA perspective, as long as you take off and land from public property or private property with permission, you are legal to fly. As a news photographer, the standard for photography of a private property is that we can photograph anything that can reasonably see without aid from public property. If we can stand in the street and see something in the window, fair game. If we can only see something using a telephoto lens, that is risky. Flying a drone over public property is less risky, flying up to the front door or over somebody’s back yard more risky. Then you compare photography using a drone vs a helicopter. Our television station uses a chopper with a zoom lens to record newsworthy activity behind privacy fences. I have not heard of a challenge in court of this activity, but there would be a problem if we took pictures of somebody sunbathing nude next to their pool. There will be challenges to drone photography in the future, and a lot of this will depend on intent. News photography may have one set of standards, commercial photographers another and hobby flights yet another. Here in Texas, the only stipulation in the law is “no surveillance ,” but the definition of what that really means has yet to be determined.

 

[22kane]

I though it also had to do with the purpose of the photo. If it's used for commercial purposes, then you need 107 certification as a commercial pilot. I've also read that a drone pilot, w/o 107, is in violation when he takes a photo of a friend's home for commercial use without compensation.

 

[Flying Shroppie]

The advice given regarding the situation in the UK is not quite correct. The 50 mts "exclusion zone" refers to small groups of people, the 150 mt "exclusion zone" applies to groups of people of 1000 or more. There are other exclusion zones" such as airfields, military establishments and certain of the royal palaces.
The National Trust will try and claim that they can exclude drones from their airspace but in fact all they can prevent is drones taking off and landing on their property.
Always it is best to observe others sensibilities but not to give in to bullying by organisations who think that they know the details of the law or try to apply the law as it suits them.
We have just experienced the military trying out jamming of drone control signals in South Wales and the south Midlands as part of a defence exercise..
I live on the edge of this "exclusion zone" and did not experience any interference but as a safeguard I only took the drone a few feet up into the air. It would be interesting to find out how effective this "jamming" was but I presume that will remain a military secret

 

[Rainsong]

I'm not sure of it's authenticity but another drone pilot told me that at least here, airspace over someones house is considered an easement and is fair game as long as you are higher than the highest thing on the property, be it a tree, roof etc. I would like to know if others have heard that.

 

[Grimm]

In the US, if you fly your drone for any compensation- no matter the value- you must have a part 107 license. The airspace over private property is considered public airspace. I do not believe there is a stated minimum over which the airspace becomes private. Commercial helicopters have to fly above obstructions, so seeing a chopper hanging around your backyard not so much of a problem. With drones, there needs to be some regulation when flying over private property without permission, how low is too low?There was a report some time ago in my neighborhood of somebody flying their drone up to their back door. If they are within line of sight, the FAA probably considers this flight legal but privacy concerns come into play.

 

[BigAl07]

In the US, if you fly your drone for any compensation- no matter the value- you must have a part 107 license. The airspace over private property is considered public airspace. I do not believe there is a stated minimum over which the airspace becomes private. Commercial helicopters have to fly above obstructions, so seeing a chopper hanging around your backyard not so much of a problem. With drones, there needs to be some regulation when flying over private property without permission, how low is too low?There was a report some time ago in my neighborhood of somebody flying their drone up to their back door. If they are within line of sight, the FAA probably considers this flight legal but privacy concerns come into play.

Compensation is but ONE caveat to Hobby/Recreational protection. It's a lot easier to say it like this:

Anything that is not 100% hobby/recreation requires either Part 107 or some type of COA.

Let's break it down just a pinch further:
Every UAS operator in the USA, by default is a CIVIL Operator which means they require Part 107. COA's are for special interest (Govt Use etc) and some agencies utilize both within the same agency. Hobby/Recreational Operations fall within a "Protective Bubble" which gives "limited" protection from some Part 107 requirements. This is called the “Exception for Limited Recreational Operation of Unmanned Aircraft”

If any portion of your Hobby/Recreational flight does not fit 100% within the confines of your "Protective Bubble" the bubble is pierced and you're responsible for all aspects of Part 107 (even if you've never taken the test or read the first sentence about Part 107). This is noted in the wording of the regulation stating:

“Recreational flyers must adhere to all of the statutory conditions to operate under the Exception for Limited Recreational Operation of Unmanned Aircraft. Otherwise, the recreational operations must be conducted under 14 CFR part 107.”

So Compensation is only ONE aspect that would remove you from the protection of Hobby. INTENT is a huge sticking point because you can INTEND to fly for FREE but for someone else's interest (even volunteering etc) and you are outside of the "Exception for Limited Recreational Operation of Unmanned Aircraft..”

 

[Ron (MM)]

FAA.. Recreational Flyers & Modeler Community-Based Organizations

 

[maelstrom]

The advice given regarding the situation in the UK is not quite correct. The 50 mts "exclusion zone" refers to small groups of people, the 150 mt "exclusion zone" applies to groups of people of 1000 or more.

The advice about building exclusions is correct: https://dronesafe.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Drone-Code_October2019.pdf

 

[FlyingHevy]

I know I'm late to this party, but the FAA's claims to control airspace down to the blades of grass--and thus to be able to provide authority to drone operators to fly at that height--are unlikely to be upheld by the courts (at least as to drones). This hasn't been tested in this way, which means the answer to whether you're trespassing when you fly at 5' above someone's property has not yet been decided with any kind of certainty. You probably don't want to be the test case, so I would avoid flying low over other people's properties. What "low" is probably depends on the circumstances and the area you're in.

I wish there was something more certain to say, but there is not--at least not yet.

 

[Marko9219]

From an FAA perspective, as long as you take off and land from public property or private property with permission, you are legal to fly. As a news photographer, the standard for photography of a private property is that we can photograph anything that can reasonably see without aid from public property. If we can stand in the street and see something in the window, fair game. If we can only see something using a telephoto lens, that is risky. Flying a drone over public property is less risky, flying up to the front door or over somebody’s back yard more risky. Then you compare photography using a drone vs a helicopter. Our television station uses a chopper with a zoom lens to record newsworthy activity behind privacy fences. I have not heard of a challenge in court of this activity, but there would be a problem if we took pictures of somebody sunbathing nude next to their pool. There will be challenges to drone photography in the future, and a lot of this will depend on intent. News photography may have one set of standards, commercial photographers another and hobby flights yet another. Here in Texas, the only stipulation in the law is “no surveillance ,” but the definition of what that really means has yet to be determined.

There is nothing whatsoever about using a telephoto lens that makes it even close to Illegal. As long as the photographer is on public ground, he's legal. Period. Case in point: Huge lenses being pointed into Groom Lake Nevada, probably America's most secret air base. Totally legal from the BLM mountains miles away. Those pictures are posted all the time and there's nothing the military can do about it.

 

[nealh]

No matter what the law states, the golden rule dictates that you wouldn’t want a stranger to fly over your home and video it. That being said, if you are over 200 feet and passing over homes to get To a location for that ideal shot during the golden time, I personally don’t see a problem. As long as you don’t hover over someone’s property recording them.
I would not post it for the public, but private viewing, therefore you are safe.

 

[Earthman]

I know I'm late to this party, but the FAA's claims to control airspace down to the blades of grass--and thus to be able to provide authority to drone operators to fly at that height--are unlikely to be upheld by the courts (at least as to drones). This hasn't been tested in this way, which means the answer to whether you're trespassing when you fly at 5' above someone's property has not yet been decided with any kind of certainty. You probably don't want to be the test case, so I would avoid flying low over other people's properties. What "low" is probably depends on the circumstances and the area you're in.

I wish there was something more certain to say, but there is not--at least not yet.

The FAA doesn’t “claim” anything.

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was an act of Congress that created and empowered the FAA to oversee and regulate the use of American airspace by both military and civilian aircraft. Airspace starts at the ground surface and goes up from there. Our representatives granted the FAA this power.

Only the FAA can regulate the airspace in the USA and this has been tested and upheld in the courts enough recently that no one other than the clueless is going to challenge it and they will lose that battle.

However, some local communities have enacted privacy laws that govern how close you can fly a drone near someone who can reasonably expect privacy. It’s not always clear if your intent is considered. Most such laws seem to be settling on 200-ft. In any case, in some communities you can be violating a local law without violating an FAA regulation.

 

[Ron (MM)]

Presently and during these early years of sUAS operations. All (PIC) should set a positive example of thier Flight and Ground Operations. This will surely aid in how the public views what flies overhead and at such a low altitude. Like much of anything that is operated publicly that has potential of causing harm to life or destruction of property must have some order. I would like to believe that is what the FAA is working on, actually I know they are. The public must have proof of safe and educated flight operations to gain the confidence needed to build trust in sUAS operations. Be the example of what is expected as a (PIC).We already trust < enough whats out there ie the dollar the planes the auto the safety switch on a pistol etc...This is just the begining.
That is all... Carry on

 

[vindibona1]

From an FAA perspective, as long as you take off and land from public property or private property with permission, you are legal to fly. As a news photographer, the standard for photography of a private property is that we can photograph anything that can reasonably see without aid from public property. If we can stand in the street and see something in the window, fair game. If we can only see something using a telephoto lens, that is risky. Flying a drone over public property is less risky, flying up to the front door or over somebody’s back yard more risky. Then you compare photography using a drone vs a helicopter. Our television station uses a chopper with a zoom lens to record newsworthy activity behind privacy fences. I have not heard of a challenge in court of this activity, but there would be a problem if we took pictures of somebody sunbathing nude next to their pool. There will be challenges to drone photography in the future, and a lot of this will depend on intent. News photography may have one set of standards, commercial photographers another and hobby flights yet another. Here in Texas, the only stipulation in the law is “no surveillance ,” but the definition of what that really means has yet to be determined.

Yes... but upon further research, being within the law in this area doesn't mean anything. I live in the Cook County in Illinois, where dependent on who you're dealing with, actual law is often ignored (or circumstances concocted) for some things and you can easily find yourself defending yourself in court for any number of things that clearly are NOT in violation of the law in any respect. See the following article...

Drone pilot improperly charged and acquitted in Chicago

 

[AdrianYYC]

In Canada the legal requirements, as I understand from my Advanced Pilot Training, are to keep 30m distance from any bystanders, otherwise flying above private property is perfectly legal to the limit of 122m (400 ft). I suppose the lower limit opens some room for debate. Photographing properties is also legal, but with the expectation of privacy. Most countries have laws which allow people to be photographed in public spaces without written permission, except minors (under 18) which require permission from legal guardian, but people are protected inside their homes, so I would not photograph a person from a drone in their back yard without their permission. It is not allowed to fly closer than 30m of any bystander anyway.