Drones have the potential to force restrictions on public place photography

lynnb

lynnb

Veteran
Local time
9:30 PM
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
11,010
This article "Privacy concerns mount as drones take to the skies" makes me wonder whether irresponsible use of camera drones (e.g. camera-equipped drones hovering over bikini-clad women on the beach) may result in legislation restricting picture-taking in public places - and not necessarily confined to drones. If the media gets on the bandwagon the usual hurriedly drafted administrative or legislative response results in poorly worded regulations and laws that cast a wider net than intended.

Interesting also are the mentions of privacy and vulnerability in public places like a beach. My take on this is that drone use is extending the concept of privacy into public places, and is likely to result in further restrictions on photography in public places.
 
At least in the US, those laws are already pretty well established in case law precedent. "Curtilage" and aerial photography (at least by government entities) is well defined.

I am appalled at the concept that "privacy" extends further than your own draped windows. When you're "in public," you're "in public." That's what differentiates "private" from "public." I don't understand why people think they have a right to privacy anywhere that is a public place or place open to the public?
 
I don't see any relation between jerk hovering his junk over public beach or guff with camera at the same ground and photography in public.
Media has zero interest in public by public photography ban. If you haven't noticed the media is heavily depending on this kind of pictures and videos now.
 
I'm not a drone in public fan, still as long as the expectation of privacy is respected I can't see a case against them.
 
The media may or may not make this topic hot. Probably not (US election year - way more excrement to drop in the fan).
Either way, laws are well established and public photos are (IMO) virtually unstoppable.
 
No difference in shooting from the ground and shooting from a drone. I own a DJI Phantom 3 and started exploring it's use for street photography. The problem so far is the lens is about the same as a 21mm on 135 format which necessates being dangerously close to the subject. I'm finding its best use for wide shots at a distance.

There are federal and local laws on the books already restricting where you can fly drones. For example you're restricted from flying them in public parks, national parks, playgrounds, graveyards, around hospitals, around churches, electrical power generating facilities and goverent facilities to name a few. Your maximum altitude is 400ft AGL and there are restrictions within given distances of airports / controlled air space. Also the laws that apply to fix and rotary wing aircraft apply to drones.

Like everything else people will ignore the regulations. Regulations only stop those of us that would normally comply with the law. Laws don't really stop anyone, they only allow allow those that violate them to be prosecuted.
 
The Bahamas suddenly issued a new law that forbids the use of drones for photography. Erich Ritter was in the midst of one of his shark human interaction projects when he discovered this law. They confiscated his drone, and they will return it to him when he leaves the Bahamas, he was told.
 
lynnb said:
This article "Privacy concerns ... may result in legislation restricting picture-taking in public places - and not necessarily confined to drones. ...
Interesting also are the mentions of privacy and vulnerability in public places like a beach. My take on this is that drone use is extending the concept of privacy into public places, and is likely to result in further restrictions on photography in public places.
Click to expand...

Well if you use a drone... possibly. Otherwise there would have to be a Constitutional amendment. All laws restricting freedom of editorial expression have been overturned. All lawsuits have failed. I think it's extremely unlikely the federal legal standards for personal privacy and its relation to public spaces will change. State and local standards must comply with the Constitution.

In NY State there was a case where a still photographer photographed women in bikinis on a public beach. (I wish I had kept the link :bang:.) Anyway, some young women sued the photographer. In that case the NY Supreme Court defined a private space (a space where one has a legal right to privacy) as a space where on can disrobe with a reasonable expectation of privacy. The women lost their case. This ruling affected the recent NY law suit against a fine art photographer in NYC who photographed people in high-rise condos/apartments with large windows. Their candid shots were displayed in a NYC art gallery and eventually published in an art book. The photographer won.

The only difference between a drone and a camera mounted on top of a tall building for surveillance by a corporation is the drone can move. We all know we're constantly being monitored by private companies and corporations when we are in public. In fact, there are two homes in my suburban neighborhood with video cameras mounted near their roof lines.

You might explore the blog on photoattorney.com for more information from an attorney.
 
Drones are obnoxious, and doubly so if you live in a high rise where it was heretofore not necessary to buy $5K in drapes. But we have drones violating the airspace over the footprint of our property (and hovering outside 20+ story windows), and if I didn't have small children, I'd invest in a 12-gauge and birdshot.

Part of this could be avoided if the FCC lifted the ban on low-power signal jammers.

Dante
 
Dante_Stella said:
Drones are obnoxious, and doubly so if you live in a high rise where it was heretofore not necessary to buy $5K in drapes. But we have drones violating the airspace over the footprint of our property (and hovering outside 20+ story windows), and if I didn't have small children, I'd invest in a 12-gauge and birdshot.

Part of this could be avoided if the FCC lifted the ban on low-power signal jammers.

Dante
Click to expand...

So your response to a drone flown legally is illegal destruction of property? Discharging of a weapon in a public area? Not to mention the potential for harm to those below by said weapon or falling debris?

Seriously though, is anyone actually hovering drones outside of high-rise residences? I feel like there'd be a big outcry if so, and someone less restrained doing exactly what you said. Other than some remote cases I've heard about (didn't someone in Texas shoot one down?), that seems to not be happening.

My friend has a drone and we've flown it a few times just for fun. He's too chicken to even do anything but go up and down in a large open field. They are pretty boring and pointless for non-commercial use IMO, at least from what I've seen. I would use one for commercial work or social media marketing materials, but I don't really need one at the moment.
 
I don't see that there is a difference in a drone outside your window and a person peeping. One of the regs involve registering and having a number one the craft so I would think that a quick photo of the drone outside your window and the number on it would get the owner a peeping tom violation. ??
 
Corran said:
So your response to a drone flown legally is illegal destruction of property? Discharging of a weapon in a public area? Not to mention the potential for harm to those below by said weapon or falling debris?

Seriously though, is anyone actually hovering drones outside of high-rise residences? I feel like there'd be a big outcry if so, and someone less restrained doing exactly what you said. Other than some remote cases I've heard about (didn't someone in Texas shoot one down?), that seems to not be happening.
Click to expand...

I was being facetious about the shotgun. You could get in a lot of trouble if you discharged a shotgun in the city.* You wouldn't likely be prosecuted for destroying invading property (I know of at least two cases where peoples' trespassing dogs have been shot with no consequences), let alone convicted.

Yes, we have had drone flybys. And we have had violations of the FAA altitude limit. Living close to two stadiums, we are used to F-18s flying overhead, Goodyear Blimps hovering suspiciously over the pool, and police helicopters flying by at window level, albeit at a somewhat safe distance. But small helicopter drone devices, flying 10-20 feet from your window, are far more capable of invasions of privacy. I mean, I don't want someone to steal the design of the Duplo Lego City that my kids are always constructing in the living room. :)

D

*Actually, the best thing to disable drones would be something that could project Christmas tinsel into the air. Like an Estes model rocket.
 
When a photographer - that is, a living human - walks down a street and carries out the practice of street photography, he/she is participating in a lawful and legitimate photographic activity. The courts in the U.S. have ruled as such on repeated occasions.
When a person mounts a camera on an aerial drone, flies it up to someone's windows and photographs them in their own homes, we have quite another situation.

To compare the two is to compare apples and oranges. It is my hope that the U.S. courts will have the wisdom to recognize the invalidity of this comparison and rule accordingly.
As for the rest of the world, I cannot comment on their laws, courts or legal precedents. Hopefully cooler heads and insightful jurists will prevail in other nations as well.
 
willie_901 said:
Well if you use a drone... possibly. Otherwise there would have to be a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

I didn't know Australia used the US Constitution. :)

Privacy laws are different all over the world, and Americans often don't realize how local theirs are. For example, you could take a picture of a nude in the Englischer Garten in Munich, but - without release - you couldn't post it on Facebook.

Found a neighbor's drone once in our back yard. No big deal, I returned it to him, before my dogs ate it.

Roland.
 
Dante_Stella said:
But we have drones violating the airspace over the footprint of our property (and hovering outside 20+ story windows)

Dante
Click to expand...

Sorry, Dante, the US courts have held that property owners don't own the airspace above their property. You have no expectation of privacy from the air in your own yard.

Darthfeeble said:
I don't see that there is a difference in a drone outside your window and a person peeping.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct. As long as the photographer is in a place he can lawfully be, if your windows are open, he can photograph whatever he can see. It's the same with a drone. See my reply to Dante above.

noisycheese said:
When a photographer - that is, a living human - walks down a street and carries out the practice of street photography, he/she is participating in a lawful and legitimate photographic activity. The courts in the U.S. have ruled as such on repeated occasions.

When a person mounts a camera on an aerial drone, flies it up to someone's windows and photographs them in their own homes, we have quite another situation.
Click to expand...

Actually from a legal perspective, there's no difference at all. As long as the photographer (or drone) are in a place they can lawfully be, they can photograph anything they can see. It may be tacky to stand outside someone's house and photograph in their windows from the public sidewalk, but it's perfectly lawful. Now with a drone, there may be FAA regulations regarding curtilage being broken... but perhaps not. I think it's a gray area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom