Another angry neighbor

To me it is all about respect. I wouldn't want someone flying over my back yard filming my daughters playing. When I fly over other peoples property I am usually about 300 - 400 feet, and with the wide angle lens of the P3 people look like little ants so it would be impossible to tell one person from another. I want to be a respectful neighbor.

I always give my neighbors links to youtube videos of the neighborhood I have shot. I assume they would know if I was eavesdropping in them they would be able to tell by the huge swarm of bees flying around their property.

 
  • Like
Reactions: unclejas
i only talk to one of my neighbors but I made sure to take the phantom out on a day he was in the back working on his yard so that he saw me set up and launch the bird. He came over and I showed him the live video feed and let him know there was no zoom. That way he knew enough to not worry that I was trying to spy on his moderately hot wife.
 
I always give my neighbors links to youtube videos of the neighborhood I have shot. I assume they would know if I was eavesdropping in them they would be able to tell by the huge swarm of bees flying around their property.



lol at swarm of bees.

that is the other point I make when people tell me the drone is for spying. It has no zoom and sounds like a hive of angry bees, you would be better off just getting a ladder and spy the traditional way.
 
Lmao, funny ****! Pics!


lol, I am 6'7, have full tattoo sleeves on my arms and legs and have a rather large facial scar.

here is a picture of me in one of my worksuits. Not scary if you ask me...

10373820_10205712527799674_4527185442110634987_n_zpszjulphyz.jpg
 
Watching this right now, while I set a flight plan up Cataract Canyon this evening maybe about sundown.

 
  • Like
Reactions: dalebb
I believe the Air Commerce Act of 1926 stated that a property owner has rights to only the airspace that can reasonably be occupied. So, as I read it, if the property owner has a 100' tree on his property, you should not fly below 100' while over his property.. He is reasonably occuping that space.

The Property Rights of Airspace
By Alan R. Romero from Property Law For Dummies
In property law, owning land includes owning the earth under the surface and air above the surface. While ownership under the surface theoretically extends to the center of the earth, ownership of the air above the surface doesn’t extend endlessly into space.

Defining boundaries in the air
A landowner owns as much of the air above the surface as she can reasonably use in connection with the surface. That isn’t a clear line, obviously. Land wouldn’t be useable at all if one didn’t own some of the air above the surface; almost any use of the land requires using some airspace above the surface.

Certainly building any kind of structure on the surface occupies airspace. Because you have the right to reasonably use your land as long as you don’t unreasonably interfere with others doing the same, you have the right to reasonably use both the surface and the air above it unless you thereby interfere with someone else’s use of property.

So even though you may occupy only 20 feet of the air for a long time, under the common law principle, you can later decide to build a 200-foot building unless it would be a nuisance.

Although the upper limit of an owner’s airspace isn’t clearly defined, it certainly doesn’t extend into navigable airspace. The upper airspace belongs to the public and is open to air travel.

Using and protecting airspace
Ownership of airspace is just like ownership of land. The owner can use and enjoy it reasonably. Zoning and other statutes often restrict the height of buildings. Such statutes don’t actually declare the unused airspace to belong to the public, however; they merely restrain the owner’s use of that space. So landowners may own more airspace than the law allows them to use.

Not only can the landowner use and enjoy the airspace, but she can also convey it to others. For example, a condominium may divide up airspace among individual unit owners. An owner can also give another party, such as a utility company, an easement to use some of the airspace.

An entry into another’s airspace is a trespass even if the trespasser doesn’t touch the surface of the earth. Airplanes may trespass by flying low over a person’s property, for example. An airplane trespasses by flying low enough over the surface to interfere with the owner’s reasonable use and enjoyment of her surface.

Of course, if the airplane doesn’t fly over a person’s surface, just nearby, the airplane’s interference with the surface because of noise and light wouldn’t be a trespass — but it could be a nuisance. And if the government’s flying the plane, the landowner could only seek just compensation for the government taking an easement through her airspace.

So I can sue all those annoying tourist helicopters flying over my property to see the Hollywood sign? Hmmm... That would be nice. Too bad it's not really true. The reality is there is little up-to-date legislation on this and none that deals specifically with drones except for knee-jerk laws like the one in Florida which are untenable and will need to be revised extensively.
 
Yeah this is no longer true in Florida... They just passed a law making it illegal to fly over someone's property without permission. Will that stop me? Probably not... But my neighbors are generally pretty cool and know I fly drones as a hobby

EDITED: this should read you aren't allowed to fly over someone's property and videotape or take photos of that person might interpret it as a violation of their privacy. Please see below for the exact Bill.

As always people shouldn't take the word of anyone on a forum as legal advice and should consult a lawyer if they have any questions or concerns regarding the law.

I'm also in the central FL area and I didn't know about this law. I just dug this up from Google:

"Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill that says drones cannot be used to record video or take pictures of people or their property, but there are not any criminal penalties attached to the law."

Note the part where it says "drones cannot be used to record video or take pictures of people or their property". So does this mean it's okay to fly as long as I'm not recording? if so, then i'm okay with that because I don't record that kind of stuff anyway. I'm not a pervert which means I have no intentions of recording some 14 year old girl laying out in her back yard.

Now I'm sure there are some morons out there do such that and those are the ones that should be highly prosecuted by law. Otherwise the authorities need to leave harmless people like myself alone.
 
So I can sue all those annoying tourist helicopters flying over my property to see the Hollywood sign? Hmmm... That would be nice. Too bad it's not really true. The reality is there is little up-to-date legislation on this and none that deals specifically with drones except for knee-jerk laws like the one in Florida which are untenable and will need to be revised extensively.


I have the same problem here but it is those darn Heli-Skiers!
 
i only talk to one of my neighbors but I made sure to take the phantom out on a day he was in the back working on his yard so that he saw me set up and launch the bird. He came over and I showed him the live video feed and let him know there was no zoom. That way he knew enough to not worry that I was trying to spy on his moderately hot wife.

have any pictures of his hot wife? lol sorry, I couldn't resist. :)
 
Does anyone have a link to this Florida "law"?
I can't find it, and haven't heard of it. I assume it has to do with video/ pics and not the actual airspace?
Thanks.
 
I'm also in the central FL area and I didn't know about this law. I just dug this up from Google:

"Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill that says drones cannot be used to record video or take pictures of people or their property, but there are not any criminal penalties attached to the law."

Note the part where it says "drones cannot be used to record video or take pictures of people or their property". So does this mean it's okay to fly as long as I'm not recording? if so, then i'm okay with that because I don't record that kind of stuff anyway. I'm not a pervert which means I have no intentions of recording some 14 year old girl laying out in her back yard.

Now I'm sure there are some morons out there do such that and those are the ones that should be highly prosecuted by law. Otherwise the authorities need to leave harmless people like myself alone.
\

I pretty much record all the time... not to get pictures of my neighbors - but because I'd like to have a record of the flight in case something happens. However, I fly in the 150-300 ft range - so I clearly don't have intentions of recording 14 year old girls out in their back yard either.... However. if you are flying at say 200 feet and you are recording... you are most likely capturing someone else's property in the process - in Florida you can see for miles at 200 ft (the curvature of the earth and atmospheric distortion the only limitation).

I assume someone would have to sue you and prove damages... but still... it kinda sucks that now there is a bill that is eventually going to be tested in courts. Hopefully it is tested on someone really trying to do something stupid rather than someone who is flying so high you can't tell who's who on the ground.
 

Recent Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,087
Messages
1,467,528
Members
104,965
Latest member
cokersean20