Ever use black tape to cover your lights?

[NRJ]

I feel you're wrong. If YOU, the pilot, are outside of the property, and your UAV IS ON OR ABOVE privat property, that can still be trespassing, if you do not heed the rules of the owner. Obviously not 400' high, but within a reasonable height that the owner disapproves. You asked...

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request. His article DID NOT SAY as you inserted... and your UAV IS ON OR ABOVE private property. A person must be on another persons property to be able to tell you "Don't take pictures with your UAV" then with your UAV you cannot. But as noted above... but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations.

Only the FAA has the authority to regulate the NAS and to determine and setup NFZ's or TFR's.

 

[Intruder101]

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request. His article DID NOT SAY as you inserted... and your UAV IS ON OR ABOVE private property. A person must be on another persons property to be able to tell you "Don't take pictures with your UAV" then with your UAV you cannot. But as noted above... but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations.

Only the FAA has the authority to regulate the NAS and to determine and setup NFZ's or TFR's.

I sort of agree with you on many of your points, but the main thread started because the OP wanted to black out the lights due to threats from a neighbor to shoot his drone. My reply was to the fact of flying first, taking pictures/video is second... Any and all trespassing can only take place when the Pilot OR UAV is on or above the property. Otherwise it falls under Peeping Tom laws, where applicable. I know, it's splitting hairs. Either way, you can always take photos in public and have to obey the property owners rules when flying. When asked to leave the property and you don't (or the drone) you're trespassing.

I think we both say the same thing, in different words. I'm done here...

Happy Flying.

 

[Richard W]

Any and all trespassing can only take place when the Pilot OR UAV is on or above the property.

YOU MADE IT UP, RIGHT?

The land owner rights are exactly that, ownership of the land and real estate on that land. There is no law that extends the land owner's rights to the air above. As we all know the air above ground is federally regulated and FAA manages the air above ground.

There is an obvious growing tension between land owners and near land/ground air users. We are seeing a beginning of a legal debate, the regulations will come next ... but it will take time. Meantime, be a respectful and safe flier ... this is the best we can do to help ourselves.

 

[NRJ]

I sort of agree with you on many of your points, but the main thread started because the OP wanted to black out the lights due to threats from a neighbor to shoot his drone. My reply was to the fact of flying first, taking pictures/video is second... Any and all trespassing can only take place when the Pilot OR UAV is on or above the property. Otherwise it falls under Peeping Tom laws, where applicable. I know, it's splitting hairs. Either way, you can always take photos in public and have to obey the property owners rules when flying. When asked to leave the property and you don't (or the drone) you're trespassing.

I think we both say the same thing, in different words. I'm done here...

Happy Flying.

Well I think you and I did pretty good in our discussion. After all, the FAA and the law can't make up their minds either. I have read several articles about both and one says this and the other says that. I agree with you when you say... Happy Flying.

 

[skitchen8]

I feel you're wrong. If YOU, the pilot, are outside of the property, and your UAV IS ON OR ABOVE privat property, that can still be trespassing, if you do not heed the rules of the owner. Obviously not 400' high, but within a reasonable height that the owner disapproves. You asked...

That is factually inaccurate, at least as far as the legal definition of trespassing is concerned. You cannot trespass above somebody's property, and nobody has any claim to the airspace above their property.

You should always be a good neighbor and seek permission before over flying someone's property, because it's the right thing to do, but you cannot trespass by flying over someone's property.

 

[Intruder101]

@skitchen8 I think you may have heard or read some of the more modern applications of trespassing laws, however the foundation is still unchanged.

That is factually inaccurate, at least as far as the legal definition of trespassing is concerned. You cannot trespass above somebody's property, and nobody has any claim to the airspace above their property.

I believe you should research cuius est solum ejus est usque ad coelum, even though the courts do not literally uphold the maxim, due to multiple reasons I.e. Civilian air traffic, military uses as well as mineral rights, tunnels and so forth.

Trespass to land - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The maxim "cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad infernos" (whoever owns the land owns it all the way to the heavens and to hell) is said to apply, however that has been limited by practical considerations. For example, aerial trespass is limited to airspace which might be used (therefore aeroplanes cannot be sued)."

You can trespass if you let your livestock wander on someone's property, so you don't have to physically be present to trespass. And I agree with you that no judge or magistrate would consider a 400' flight over property as trespassing, but if you fly, let's say 30' over a shed or back yard, and the owner asks you not to, you are trespassing. Usually these legal arguments are not actionable when there is no harm or damage done by a flyby. Some consider noise nuisance as trespassing, it may be different from state to state. I cannot argue for the local area where you live.

Trespass to land - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Furthermore, if a new use of nearby land interferes with a land owner's quiet enjoyment of his rights, there may be an action for nuisance, as where a disagreeable aroma or noise from A drifts across the land of B."


I do agree 100% with you here, my friend.

You should always be a good neighbor and seek permission before over flying someone's property, because it's the right thing to do, but you cannot trespass by flying over someone's property.

@Richard W , Yeah, I made it up. And then had Wikipedia put it in print and had them add it in most law text books to fool around with some folks on this forum... These sites should answer your question.

YOU MADE IT UP, RIGHT?

The land owner rights are exactly that, ownership of the land and real estate on that land. There is no law that extends the land owner's rights to the air above. As we all know the air above ground is federally regulated and FAA manages the air above ground.

 

[Myetkt]

The town I live in has a private plane with a high power camera mounted to the wing used by the Sheriffs Dept. Video from the camera is as clear as a P3A from 300 feet. No property is excluded.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Not surprising in the least. If you think that is something check out DARPA's 1.8 gigapixel monstrosity they plan on deploying all over the United States. From an altitude of 20,000' it can spot objects as small as 6". It is designed to capture & store mass surveillance on EVERYONE. This cracks me up when people are concerned about Phantoms "spying" on them.

DARPA's 1.8 gigapixel drone camera is a high-res Fourth Amendment lawsuit waiting to happen

The town I live in has a private plane with a high power camera mounted to the wing used by the Sheriffs Dept. Video from the camera is as clear as a P3A from 300 feet. No property is excluded.

 

[LSZ1318]

And I agree with you that no judge or magistrate would consider a 400' flight over property as trespassing,

This is really a great post and the heart of the matter. Judges have pretty wide discretion on any matters of trespassing that are brought before the court, and will take into account a huge variety of factors - regardless of whether or not the 'trespassing' was on the ground or in the air. Simply stating that flying a drone over someone's property is or isn't trespassing really misses the point from a legal standpoint - the fact is, until a specific claim of trespassing is brought before a judge you cannot be 100% certain of anything.

If this seems murky from a flying or 'air rights' standpoint, it's just as murky for elements on the ground! Every state has fairly simple and clear language about trespassing - or so it seems! Here's a fun website that lists trespassing laws and signage for each state:

Trespassing Laws & Signs For All Fifty States | Signs.com

It goes without saying that, regardless of the verbiage, the enforcement and rulings will vary widely depending on who you are dealing with in law enforcement or the courts. One thing is very, very clear, however: When there is a sign posted, your chances of winning any kind of case that's brought against you drop significantly. As a result, I have no doubt that the DJI GO app, and all others like it, will at some point be equipped with 'trespassing' warnings that will come from some sort of collective database that private citizens can access - not unlike the Do Not Call list. In fact, I just saw a new site that's trying to establish something like this...

 

[Myetkt]

In my city and state it is not illegal to fly a drone over a residential neighborhood. As a Police Officer for 27 years I have seen fighting neighbors point cameras directly into there neighbors yard and there is no law broken. I'm sure some day this will all go to court and be tied up for years to come. In the mean time if Dirty Bird decides to fly his P3P into a firework show with the LEDs covered the local PoPo aren't going to care .

 

[Myetkt]

MAN WHO SHOT DOWN DRONE PLEADS GUILTY TO CRIMINAL MISCHIEF.

News from The Associated Press

 

[richardtomcat]

I've read Peter Sach's comments in several articles about drones flying into a fireworks show. One thing I'm unclear on is this: By what authority does any city/county/state establish a temporary 'safety zone' - one that keeps the ground clear, but also private airplanes and drones away? In Peter's own blog ('State and local government drone law' section) he plainly states the fact that the FAA is the sole authority in the skies. I'm not asking this to be a smart *** - I'm genuinely interested.

My opinion is that such a thing would be established in court. As pilot photographers we are in no man's land and authorities, rights, rules, regulations and laws will be established by our actions. Loved the fireworks UAS footage. This pilot photographer must have deep pockets. I worked hard for my P3P and wouldn't take a chance with it being taken out by a mortar round.

 

[Case29247]

Jeez guys. I'm sure everyone here flys under 400, within LOS, and only over places with preapproved permission. Get real.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

Ahhhhh....................That good old Middle School tactic--Mitigate your own failings by bringing up others'.

Good to be back at N. Bethesda Junior High. Thanks for the trip.

 

[Davphys]

Tinfoil hat alert!!!

Not surprising in the least. If you think that is something check out DARPA's 1.8 gigapixel monstrosity they plan on deploying all over the United States. From an altitude of 20,000' it can spot objects as small as 6". It is designed to capture & store mass surveillance on EVERYONE. This cracks me up when people are concerned about Phantoms "spying" on them.

DARPA's 1.8 gigapixel drone camera is a high-res Fourth Amendment lawsuit waiting to happen

 

[N017RW]

The Phantom 1 actually debuted about a month before that story.

 

[Illina]

Here's a phantom with blacked out lights. Then again it was used to try and smuggle in a couple hack saw blades, a cell phone, blue tooth, and battery, some marijuana, some meth, a couple packs of cigarettes, a couple packs of cigars, tube of super glue, and some heroin into a Oklahoma Prison.

Who says Phantoms can't handle a payload!

 

[Dirty Bird]

Well I guess that settles it. Any person blacking out their Phantom's lights is clearly up to no good. Similarly the attached photo demonstrates the true intentions of anyone operating an automobile:

Here's a phantom with blacked out lights. Then again it was used to try and smuggle in a couple hack saw blades, a cell phone, blue tooth, and battery, some marijuana, some meth, a couple packs of cigarettes, a couple packs of cigars, tube of super glue, and some heroin into a Oklahoma Prison.

Who says Phantoms can't handle a payload!

View attachment 43972

 

[Richard W]

Sorry, got distracted ... so, why one would want to block ALL the nav/stat lights at night?

 

[N017RW]

Well I guess that settles it. Any person blacking out their Phantom's lights is clearly up to no good. Similarly the attached photo demonstrates the true intentions of anyone operating an automobile:

Yea, if you're driving at night with the lights off your likely: under the influence, otherwise impaired or distracted, or trying to reduce your visibility to others, but not necessarily.

 

[XJoeyX]

Not that I black my lights out, but wrap the tape with the sticky side outwards. No residue on the lens... Just saying

Yep! We do the same thing with the wires at times (if we don't have any phase tape)...