Another Example of Photographer's Rights Under Assault

[Contarama]

http://news.yahoo.com/photographer-charged-flying-over-feedlot-124325650.html

I really like the comment by one reader that says well if this is so then I want all of the major airlines arrested for flying over my property.

 

[TXForester]

It may not be as bad as you think. Assuming the unknown vehicle on the ranch belongs to the pilot or photographer, then they may be guilty of trespass. The article does not make that clear that it is their vehicle, but implies such.

 

[ferider]

Another Example of Photographer's Rights Under Assault

Not really. They were trespassing, taking photos or not.

Then again: build yourself a mini-drone (e.g., http://diydrones.com), fly over your neighbor's backyard, take photos of the neighbors wife sun-bathing in the nude and post on facebook.

Is that your "Photographer's right" ? I've wondered before ....

 

[Keith]

Another Example of Photographer's Rights Under Assault

Not really. They were trespassing, taking photos or not.

Then again: build yourself a mini-drone (e.g., http://diydrones.com), fly over your neighbor's backyard, take photos of the neighbors wife sun-bathing in the nude and post on facebook.

Is that your "Photographer's right" ? I've wondered before ....

Let's get some satelites up there and do the whole damned planet ... oh hang on!

Google Earth? 😛

 

[ferider]

Let's get some satelites up there and do the whole damned planet ... oh hang on!

Google Earth? 😛

Lousy resolution, Keith.

I find privacy in airspace over private property an interesting question. Here is a variant of the problem that might be more to your taste 🙂

FLORIDA V. RILEY

Three years after deciding Ciraolo, the Supreme Court decided another case involving aerial surveillance. In Florida v. Riley, police used a helicopter to hover 400 feet over a greenhouse that had two panels missing from its roof. From the helicopter they were able to see and photograph marijuana plants through the open panels. At his trial for possession of marijuana, Michael A. Riley asked the court to suppress the marijuana evidence because the police violated the Fourth Amendment.

The trial court ruled in Riley's favor, but the Supreme Court reversed. Relying on its decision in Ciraolo, the Court said Riley could not expect privacy from helicopters hovering above his greenhouse.

Google earth won't be able to distinguish between Canabis and say, a maple leaf. 🙂

 

[colyn]

Interesting cases..

While we may own the ground where our homes/etc are located we do not own the airspace above.

We can legally photograph private property while we are in the public domain as long as we do not step foot on said private property so it stands to reason law enforcement can photograph your property from above..but in the first case these people were clearly trespassing when they parked their vehicle on private property without permission..

 

[rscheffler]

It's an issue of trespassing (they parked on and launched the glider from the ranch's property) and seems also to be about what the property owner's expectations of privacy are.

Of greater concern are the laws of various states that propose to ban photography of farms.

http://www.pdnonline.com/news/Agribusiness-Pressin-2222.shtml

The link above, and others I found, were all from 2011. Not sure what the current situation is now...

 

[mugent]

This isn't really a photography issue, it's a private property issue. Dangling a camera round your neck doesn't negate trespass.

 

[squareshooter]

It's not about trespass. That is the only thing they could get the photog on. It's about people wanting to torture animals and get by with it -- which they are. It's harassment and law enforcement misconduct under the color of law. As for who owns air rights, that is very complicated depending on where you live. And the airlines have been granted the right to fly over your property -- sorry. If you are looking for trouble check out what railroad detectives to hapless private citizens.

 

[noisycheese]

Interesting cases..

While we may own the ground where our homes/etc are located we do not own the airspace above.

We can legally photograph private property while we are in the public domain as long as we do not step foot on said private property so it stands to reason law enforcement can photograph your property from above..but in the first case these people were clearly trespassing when they parked their vehicle on private property without permission..

Their problems arose from carelessness in where they launched the ultralight aircraft from, and where they parked their truck (assuming that the truck in question was indeed theirs).

If they had taken care not to trespass and had flown over a public road or other public land when photographing the farm, the local bureaucrats would have been hard pressed to file criminal charges against them, I would think.

It's true that we do not own the airspace over our homes, businesses, etc. Neither do we own the mineral rights to the ground under them, unless we have purchased those rights.

Regarding the supposed "owning" of your home or business: Quit paying The Powers That Be the property taxes they levy against your home or business and you will find out exactly who really owns them... 🙄