If a privately owned, unauthorized by you, photo drone was flying over your property...

How would you feel? How would you react?

 

My gut reaction would be to either disable or destroy it. But perhaps they need to continuously broadcast a signal identifying the owner

and operator.

<p>Passing by, I'd just let it go about its business. If it decided to loiter and hover around I might take a slightly more aggressive point of view.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>I would photograph it then turn the photo into the local law enforcement and file a trespassing complaint against the operator.</p>

Willis - I think you will find that trespass is an issue only when damage occurs to your property.

<blockquote>

<p><em>...I think you will find that trespass is an issue only when damage occurs to your property.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>Not true, but I'm sure that it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.</p>

<p><em>Injury to the property is not necessary for the defendant to be guilty of trespass, although the amount of damages awarded will generally reflect the extent of the harm done to the property.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Cited from - <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trespass">http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/trespass</a></p>

<p>Also from the same source -</p>

<p><em>Courts have had to consider how far above and below the ground the right to possession of land extends. In United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court held the federal government liable for harm caused to a poultry business by low-altitude military flights. The Court concluded that because the airspace above land is like a public highway, ordinary airplane flights cannot commit trespass. In this case, however, <strong>the planes were flying below levels approved by federal law and regulations, so the government was held responsible. Its activity was a "taking" of private property, for which the <a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fifth+Amendment">Fifth Amendment</a> to the U.S. Constitution requires just compensation.</strong></em><strong> </strong></p>

<p>...establishes that property rights extend (to a degree) above ground level and are thus protected. </p>

<p>There may very well be a cause for action although awarded damages likely would be very little. Depending on specific circumstances this may also be considered a privacy invasion.</p>

<p>Note: I am not an attorney, have not played one on TV, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;-) <br>

Should this actually happen to you consult a competent legal adviser.<br>

<em> </em></p>

<p>Would not bother me. In fact, I have been considering buying one myself. What's the difference between a small drone and the Google van that's been going around? Or satellites? </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>How might you disable or destroy, assuming the drone is beyond the reach of normal household items, e.g. garden hose, sling-shot, etc. Discharging firearms within city limits is illegal. To see how one municipality has responded to potential drones Google 'Deer Trail, Colorado, drone'.</p>

<p>A Brookes: '...trespass is an issue only when damage occurs to your property.' Damage has <em>no</em> bearing whatsoever. Trespass is unlawful entry onto land/property, plain and simple.</p>

"Courts have had to consider how far above and below the ground the right to possession of land extends. In United

States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946), the U.S. Supreme Court held the federal

government liable for harm caused to a poultry business by low-altitude military flights. The Court concluded that because

the airspace above land is like a public highway, ordinary airplane flights cannot commit trespass. In this case, however,

the planes were flying below levels approved by federal law and regulations, so the government was held responsible. Its

activity was a "taking" of private property, for which the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires just

compensation.

 

...establishes that property rights extend (to a degree) above ground level and are thus protected."

 

The difference is that ruling refers to a private vs. government dispute while I am asking about private individuals vs.

private individuals.

<p>As someone who flies camera drones over both public property and (with permission) private property, I can say that someone loitering an RC aircraft over my property without working it out in advance would make me not very happy. Not because I think they can use a GoPro from 100' to read my bank statement through my kitchen window, but because it can just generally feel (and sound) distracting, intrusive, and - because I don't know the operator or how well they're maintaining and using their equipment - possibly just dangerous.<br /><br />Disabling a flying multi-rotor pretty much is the same as destroying it. If you are able to interfere with its flight controller, it's likely going to fall out of the sky like a brick. I've crashed a couple out of pure momentary incompetence on my part, and they rarely win an argument with gravity. This is tricky stuff, but explore some analogous scenarios:<br /><br />If some kid decided to ride a dirt bike through your property without permission, would you attempt to disable/destroy that vehicle? How about if someone set up a trail cam on a tree on your property - destroy it?<br /><br />This whole topic is about manners. I can fly a drone down a street, staying carefully above only public property, and shoot landscapes that include private property - just like so many here set up a tripod on the side of a public road, and shoot farmland or barns or storefronts that are on private property. The way in which the photographer conducts himself in such a situation is usually what generates the positive or negative reaction on the part of the property owner. So far, I have a 100% track record of private property owners being completely enthusiastic about a chance to get some footage or stills of their property, home, rooftop garden, business, vehicle, horse, pond, etc., from the air. Once they see it, they think it's great. But that's because it's manners first, aerial photography second.<br /><br />The main thing to understand about the current technology is that it's not really a long-range affair. Joe Camera Drone Operator isn't a mile away, looking at a Predator computer display, flying outside people's bedroom windows. This stuff is in most cases LoS (line of sight), and unless the operator is breaking all sorts of FCC regs, the onboard radio equipment just isn't powerful enough to carry well through trees. Houses, hills, pretty much anything will block the 2-way RF needed to do RCAP (remote control aerial photography). <br /><br />The FAA is rather lethargically thrashing around on this subject, with some prospect of issuing a bit of a regulatory framework in 2015. That will apply to commercial operators. Amateur, recreational RC pilots (remember, this has been going on as a hobby for <em>decades</em> now) are explicitly spared from almost all FAA control - as along as they don't fly next to airports, keep it under 400', and fly LoS. People who do things that turn out to be dangerous are subject to the same sort of reckless endangerment laws that already exist - no different than dealing with an idiot skateboarder who sails down a railing into a crowded sidewalk ... it's not about the skateboard (or the drone), it's about the recklessness.?<br /><br />Of note, Illinois just passed a law prohibiting the sort of behavior that PETA has been championing: using drones to deliberately harass hunters and people fishing (both to annoy those people, and to scare away game). <br /><br />How would I react to an obviously intrusive drone operator over private property? About the same way I'd react to somebody with a 1000mm lens focused on my bathroom window from a van on the street. It's about intent. If I can't find the pilot somewhere nearby on the ground, or can't catch up with the paparazzi-ish person using the super telephoto before he drives off, I can't determine the intent of either one. I value privacy, so yeah - I'd probably assume the worst, even with no evidence in hand. But be careful at encouraging people to destroy drones - law enforcement doesn't approve of that sort of property destruction, even when it feels like trespass. We're definitely going to see cases like this bubble up in 2014, no question.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>I doubt the sky over one's property is protected by any trespassing legislation. Besides, how would one tell if the drone was privately owned or sent by some government agency? I'd<br>

In my case, it wouldn't bother me too much since my property can clearly be seen by my neighbors.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>M Lauer: 'How about if someone set up a trail cam on a tree on your property - destroy it?' The moment they leave the cam it's considered abandoned property - period. You're well within your right to do as you wish to or with any abandoned property, including destroying it.</p>

<p>'This whole topic is about manners.' Can you provide a legal definition of <em>manners</em>? Kidding. This isn't about manners - it's what the law would consider <em>a reasonable expectation of privacy</em>, defined as...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Besides, how would one tell if the drone was privately owned or sent by some government agency?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Civil authorities are almost universally barred, for now, from operating any UAVs. And when they do use them, they are the big, full-sized-aircraft types (similar to the drones that fly in military circumstances) that fly for many hours at a time, at tens of thousands of feet. Think in terms of border patrol, or watching for things like home-brew drug smuggling submarines - multi-million dollar machines flying so high that you'd probably be completely unaware of them.<br>

<br />The camera drones that private people fly are low-altitude things that can rarely stay up for much more than 10 minutes. The ones that can stay up longer are usually very lightweight/fragile. None of them do well at all in the wind, especially the lighter ones that can stay up longer. If you're seeing a small quadcopter or even a larger hexa/octa flying around, it's a private photographer or recreational flyer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This isn't about manners - it's what the law would consider <em>a reasonable expectation of privacy</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. But one's <em>reaction</em> to somebody being intrusive is driven by the perception of intent, responsiveness to being asked to stop/go away, etc. That was my point. Essentially, there's a difference between letting your camera drone stray over a fence line in order to get a better sunset shot of a barn on a hill, and sending a camera drone to take pictures of someone's underwear drying on a clothesline outside their kitchen window. The reaction (that urge to destroy the drone, for example) surely isn't the same in both cases, and that was my point.</p>

<p>Two words "goose gun". I've got an old long barreled Marlin 12 gauge, specifically made for knocking down high fliers.</p>

"If some kid decided to ride a dirt bike through your property without permission, would you attempt to disable/destroy that

vehicle?

 

Assuming that someone is on the dirt bike that would not be a good idea. Stopping them and having them arrested for

trespass or having the cops waiting where they exit your property is a better way to proceed.

"What's the difference between a small drone and the Google van that's been going around? Or satellites?

 

The Google mapping van and satellites are on or in publicly owned space. I do have an expectation of your property

rights extending upwards to a certain limit (generally around 500 feet but I could be and probably am wrong.) if the

Google Van drove up into your driveway: different matter entirely.

 

 

" With the Obama administration collecting my phone calls, emails, etc."

 

That started happening long before President Obama took the oath of office.while I don't like it , you can't pin it on him

exclusively. Blame President George W. Bush and the Congressmen and Senators of both political parties that drafted

and passed the Homeland Security Act.

 

"An obvious drone owned by a private individual is very small potatoes..."

 

Whether the drone is owned by a hobbyist or a large corporation, to mix herbaceous cliches, from small acorns, big oaks grow.

<p>Where I live hot air balloon flights are fairly popular, and often in good weather the balloons with passengers fly quite low over my place, with people snapping photos as they approach (there is plentiful wildlife in the surrounding fields and woods), and sometimes they also land the balloons within 1-200 yards. I snap shots of them and they snap shots of me. I don't have an issue. For the last 10 years I've occasionally checked the USGS satellite photos over my house to see what changes are taking place in the local large marshes and creeks. My next door neighbor, a young police officer, at my last home (a few miles away, but similarly situated) mentioned that local law enforcement helicopters periodically scanned the marshes (which was obvious early Saturday mornings as you saw them flying low around the neighborhood), checking for covert marijuana plantings which couldn't be seen from the roads or surrounding properties. I'm just not personally bothered by the idea of private photo drones flying over my property without my authorization...they might make good pellet gun practice targets.</p>

Perhaps charging for property access rights is the best solution. What do you think?

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps charging for property access rights is the best solution. What do you think?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think it's any different than any other use of private property. Some farmers, for example, charge to allow others to recreationally use their land (riding horses, or hunting deer), and others don't - so long as its used respectfully. I'm currently "paying" a farm to shoot a year-long documentary-ish project (some shots from the ground, some from the air). I get access, and they get use of my output for their own promotional purposes (say, seasonal images and video to post on social media - that sort of thing). But they're such nice people that they'd have gladly let me shoot on and over their property if I'd just asked. If they didn't know me, and I'd showed up with remote control in hand at their fence buzzing their barn? That would have been off to a bad start, no matter how many free aerial prints and vids I offered after the fact.<br /><br />This is a case where it's probably <em>not</em> easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission. If you've got visually interesting property and want to sell access to it for photographers, why not. But I can only imagine how exciting that might get in terms of complicated liability issues and the rest. Release the lawyers! Once more into the breach!<br /><br />But it still all comes down to intent. Going to use the aerial images for stock that you intend to sell? That's very different than practicing some countryside FPV flying with a 1200-gram toy of a GoPro-carrying quadcopter and accidentally flying over a treeline boundary that you didn't know existed. There's plenty of room for reasonable people in these situations, but folks flying drones need to be exquisitely careful about public perception and err on the side of not pissing off private property owners.</p>

<p>Whether it's a mini drone carrying a Go Pro or a Piper Cub carrying a pilot and a photographer with an 800mm f/5.6 seems for most purposes pretty much irrelevant--and you might well encounter either. I think the most likely correct legal answer is that below some altitude the flying thing is trespassing and/or violating federal law and/or federal regulations, and above that altitude it is legal as is pretty much any over-flight. (No, I don't know what that altitude is.) With few exceptions, pretty much any of us can go out and charter an airplane to fly us over, and let us photograph, pretty much any property we want, <em>as long as we stay high enough</em>.</p>

<p>Now if any aircraft comes in too low and is 'buzzing' your property, and assuming your location doesn't have 'discharging a firearm within the city limits' issue, the progression of possible self-help remedies includes the aforementioned 'goose gun' or better yet a modern 10 gauge magnum, then (getting into Army / Navy surplus here) a Ma Deuce, then a 20mm Oerlikon, then a 40mm Bofors. Anything bigger than that just gets too cumbersome unless you have a large crew, and/or too expensive to keep in practice.</p>

<div></div>

<p>For me, my reaction would depend on how frequently it flew overhead and what kind of activity I typically engaged in outside. Unless I had young children who played in the yard often (do any such children still exist), I wouldn't be too concerned about pictures, though if it flew overhead regularly, I might find myself getting annoyed if it made significant noise.<br>

As for whether or not we 'own' any airspace over our yards, I do believe you have a right to require that a neighbor keep his trees trimmed to prevent branches from hanging over your boundary, but I have no idea how high that would extend. Perhaps your rooftop is the boundary in that direction.</p>

How high is your sky?

 

I started to do some (very) casual research based on the issues others have raised in this. In the USA, The FAA will make ruling or Congress will pass a law and then it will be challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court.

 

According to this article

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/07/photographer_george_steinmetz_arrest_how_much_a

irspace_do_you_own.html

 

Right now it appears that you have rights over the airspace above your property extending anywhere from 83 to 500 feet.

Above that it is considered to be navigable air space.

 

A link towards the bottom of the article above , http://thetandd.com/animal-rights-group-says-drone-shot-

down/article_017a720a-56ce-11e1-afc4-001871e3ce6c.html discusses a drone being shot down from private property

while it was apparently flying over a highway.

 

The Wikipedia article on "Air Rights" is kind of interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

<p>in re "destruction"<br>

So far as I know, most places in urban areas, at least, it is unlawful to discharge a firearm, much less into the air. (but see http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FiringInTheAirALot )<br /> What goes up, in projectile terms, must also come down unless you reach escape velocity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If a privately owned, unauthorized by you, photo drone was flying over your property...How would you feel? How would you react?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd wave "hello" and ask Matt if he could share of few of the photos because I'd love to see what they look like from up there.</p>

<p>;-)</p>

How about a peregrine falcon?