So it begins....
- Thread starter Macsgrafs
- Start date
helloman1976
Ziptie Relocation Expert
There are laws that prevent you from being filmed while performing sex acts unless you are on public property so you are correct there, it only applies to private property and only when privacy is reasonably expected. You can't, of course, sell that without express permission from the people in the video and that's defined under other laws regarding pornography if money is exchanged. Voyeurism based laws have been around for a long, long time. If you leave your window open while performing a sex act of any kind even if you didn't know it was being witnessed you are violating other laws. If you record that person in the window, including audio, without their consent and knowledge you are in violation of the law. You cannot legally record someone, with audio this part is KEY just video doesn't matter, on their own property or otherwise if you are doing it without them knowing i.e. secretly recording people which is why it is inadmissible in court unless an argument can be made and a judge can be convinced. Also, legally, you own all the airspace above your property to infinity there is no limit. Private aircraft are required to fly above a ceiling of 500 feet whereas the maximum legal altitude for an R/C aircraft is 400 feet. The rules change if you are flying a helicopter versus a fixed wing aircraft but I'm not going to get into too much detail here.
If you have HAM operator's licence then that changes this discussion because you are now one step closer to being "legal". Video/audio transmissions are pretty clearly defined I agree. There are no specific laws that I can think of or find that are in regards to only FPV. I think this hobby is too new and it's just now an emerging hobby really even though they've been doing this since the early 90's. I think the term "drones" has a certain connotation about it that says, "death from above" to many because of the news and media etc. If you want specific laws that prevent you from flying into airspace that are privately owned you'll have to look into government lands, private airspace, airport regulations, some state parks require a license to film, some areas are able to require a licence to film, private property where signs are clearly posted in some states, military installations, secret facilities, certain companies have security clearance like lockheed martin and boeing and so on but as far as civilians go I don't know of any specifically or very many. You can always get busted for "general safety" laws regardless so remember that too. If a cop feels you are endangering the public by flying over them, you'll be removed and fined most likly. Are we having fun yet?
If you have HAM operator's licence then that changes this discussion because you are now one step closer to being "legal". Video/audio transmissions are pretty clearly defined I agree. There are no specific laws that I can think of or find that are in regards to only FPV. I think this hobby is too new and it's just now an emerging hobby really even though they've been doing this since the early 90's. I think the term "drones" has a certain connotation about it that says, "death from above" to many because of the news and media etc. If you want specific laws that prevent you from flying into airspace that are privately owned you'll have to look into government lands, private airspace, airport regulations, some state parks require a license to film, some areas are able to require a licence to film, private property where signs are clearly posted in some states, military installations, secret facilities, certain companies have security clearance like lockheed martin and boeing and so on but as far as civilians go I don't know of any specifically or very many. You can always get busted for "general safety" laws regardless so remember that too. If a cop feels you are endangering the public by flying over them, you'll be removed and fined most likly. Are we having fun yet?
helloman1976
Ziptie Relocation Expert
I have to agree with you here, as much as I love Team Blacksheep. I've watched all their videos a thousand times and they are the reason I'm into this hobby. It's foolish of them to fly around people like that, they border harassment sometimes.
Oh how we digress. But a digression in the making of porn is always a good journey.
I have to disagree with you on the recording of sound. Those laws vary greatly from state to state. In some states as long as one person is aware it is taking place it is legal. In some states it is as you say. I believe some states all sorts of recording is permissible. Title 3 of the federal code covers mostly phone taping and often those rules have been erroneously stated as applying to non-phone voice recordings. Again we digress. Since I believe our real focus is on the image aspect of our activities. I see this aspect as a “no-biggie”. If we can’t record sound, oh well, who wants the sound of the props in the wind anyway. Then again, I haven’t heard of someone mounting a parabolic mike on a bird. I am sure it has been and will be done.
I am very interested your statement of us owning the airspace to infinity. Clearly we do not as I stated about our inability to prevent over flights of piloted aircraft and their limit of min 500 ft. So what limit do we own if any? Can you provide sources of this?
I am not aware of the Helicopter limit being different than an airplane and would ask you to discuss here. I would very much like to know the details of that.
I too was inspired by Team Blacksheep. And I too realize that they have brought negative attention to what we love to do.
I agree there is some restricted airspace for our drones, like near airports, military bases, and wilderness areas, but I am referring to regular general areas.
If we can conventionally film into a park (which we can) that requires a permit from an area adjacent (say a nearby mountain top that has a view down into said park) then we could deduce that if we were to fly legally above it or adjacent to the park then we could film there without the permit.
I somewhat agree that the term Drone has some negative connotations, I find it a term that most people quickly understand when I am describing what I do. After several minutes of terms like multirotor, octo or quad copter, oh fudge, it is a drone, is usually how the conversation goes. In conversations within our community I don’t mind the term. I would agree if someone suggested that we refrain from using it when being quoted to the press or other more publicly read forums.
Yes we are having lots of fun. I do love a good debate or discussion when it is polite and informing.
I have to disagree with you on the recording of sound. Those laws vary greatly from state to state. In some states as long as one person is aware it is taking place it is legal. In some states it is as you say. I believe some states all sorts of recording is permissible. Title 3 of the federal code covers mostly phone taping and often those rules have been erroneously stated as applying to non-phone voice recordings. Again we digress. Since I believe our real focus is on the image aspect of our activities. I see this aspect as a “no-biggie”. If we can’t record sound, oh well, who wants the sound of the props in the wind anyway. Then again, I haven’t heard of someone mounting a parabolic mike on a bird. I am sure it has been and will be done.
I am very interested your statement of us owning the airspace to infinity. Clearly we do not as I stated about our inability to prevent over flights of piloted aircraft and their limit of min 500 ft. So what limit do we own if any? Can you provide sources of this?
I am not aware of the Helicopter limit being different than an airplane and would ask you to discuss here. I would very much like to know the details of that.
I too was inspired by Team Blacksheep. And I too realize that they have brought negative attention to what we love to do.
I agree there is some restricted airspace for our drones, like near airports, military bases, and wilderness areas, but I am referring to regular general areas.
If we can conventionally film into a park (which we can) that requires a permit from an area adjacent (say a nearby mountain top that has a view down into said park) then we could deduce that if we were to fly legally above it or adjacent to the park then we could film there without the permit.
I somewhat agree that the term Drone has some negative connotations, I find it a term that most people quickly understand when I am describing what I do. After several minutes of terms like multirotor, octo or quad copter, oh fudge, it is a drone, is usually how the conversation goes. In conversations within our community I don’t mind the term. I would agree if someone suggested that we refrain from using it when being quoted to the press or other more publicly read forums.
Yes we are having lots of fun. I do love a good debate or discussion when it is polite and informing.
How about a Remotely Piloted Camera Platform (RPCP). Not too bad an acronym.
Helloman unfortunately the feds would disagree with you on who owns the airspace and in what amounts above your property (Also, legally, you own all the airspace above your property to infinity there is no limit.). And without a doubt they regulate it.
From an analysis by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of a lawsuit by a property owner against a nearby small airport:
The landowner's claim raises some fundamental legal principles about the ownership of land and the airspace above the land. These principles have been developing over time. In early common law, when there was little practical use of the upper air over a person's land, the law considered that a landowner owned all of the airspace above their land. That doctrine quickly became obsolete when the airplane came on the scene, along with the realization that each property owner whose land was overflown could demand that aircraft keep out of the landowner's airspace, or exact a price for the use of the airspace. The law, drawing heavily on the law of the sea, then declared that the upper reaches of the airspace were free for the navigation of aircraft. In the case of United States v. Causby,[SUP][3][/SUP] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain.
At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."[SUP]An example of the last part might be that you can build a 3 story barn in the back lot which would keep the aircraft higher but you couldn't string a bunch of wires at the same height (spite poles) that had no other use than to prevent air navigation. And once we are 'regulated' and some yokel decides he wants some target practice then it will be a federal crime with damage to an aircraft. Not taken lightly by the FAA or the FBI.
Hopefully we will end up with some form of requirements that are based on the current FAR's (no reason to re-create the wheel) mixed with some advisory circular from Model Airplane circular with some new stuff thrown in for the advances in technology. Lots of other countries have already come to grips with this and have done something similar.
[/SUP]
From an analysis by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of a lawsuit by a property owner against a nearby small airport:
The landowner's claim raises some fundamental legal principles about the ownership of land and the airspace above the land. These principles have been developing over time. In early common law, when there was little practical use of the upper air over a person's land, the law considered that a landowner owned all of the airspace above their land. That doctrine quickly became obsolete when the airplane came on the scene, along with the realization that each property owner whose land was overflown could demand that aircraft keep out of the landowner's airspace, or exact a price for the use of the airspace. The law, drawing heavily on the law of the sea, then declared that the upper reaches of the airspace were free for the navigation of aircraft. In the case of United States v. Causby,[SUP][3][/SUP] the U.S. Supreme Court declared the navigable airspace to be "a public highway" and within the public domain.
At the same time, the law, and the Supreme Court, recognized that a landowner had property rights in the lower reaches of the airspace above their property. The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land. In other words, a person's real property ownership includes a reasonable amount of the airspace above the property. A landowner can't arbitrarily try to prevent aircraft from overflying their land by erecting "spite poles," for example. But, a landowner may make any legitimate use of their property that they want, even if it interferes with aircraft overflying the land."
Hopefully we will end up with some form of requirements that are based on the current FAR's (no reason to re-create the wheel) mixed with some advisory circular from Model Airplane circular with some new stuff thrown in for the advances in technology. Lots of other countries have already come to grips with this and have done something similar.
[/SUP]
Ok, not directly on the topic of this thread but it has been discussed here a little. Transmitting video; So if we are hobbyist until the FAA lets us legally do it for a business, then having a HAM license covers us there (Yes, No, maybe?) Once we are legal to have a business of flying our photo platforms I believe the HAM license will no longer be valid since we would be leaving the amatuer world. Do any of you know what is required to be legal for our use or the radio spectrum?
Macsgrafs
Active Member
As long as you are transmitting in the correct part of the associated ham band & at the right power, with your call sign ident in CW every 15 mins, then you are legal. Many certified pilots in this country are still not legal & that means thier insurance is worth...SQUAT!!!!!
Macsgrafs
Active Member
Last edited by a moderator:
helloman1976
Ziptie Relocation Expert
The article you sent agrees with what I've been telling you and if you re-read the quote you included in your post you'll see what I was saying is exactly true.
My quote..
"Also, legally, you own all the airspace above your property to infinity there is no limit."
From your article...
"...the law considered that a landownerowned all of the airspace above their land."
Your article goes into the intimate details of WHY people can now fly over your airspace that you still own and changes nothing about you owning it, you still own the airspace and you can still sue the government to stop them from flying over your land. The Supreme Court has been challenged on this topic time and time again. Some states will regulate it differently but they are mostly the same. You also own all the land below you to the core of the Earth.
Whatever that was I can't get it to play.
Last edited by a moderator:
CrashMaster
Member
Hobbyists and Aerial Photographers are being lumped together with military applications:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwkxx84wXNo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwkxx84wXNo
Emowillcox
Member
Macsgrafs
Active Member
youtube are famous for pulling stuff they dont want us to see, seems like the PTB got to them before you gents had time to see the other side of the coin.
CrashMaster
Member
YouTube is now owned by Google so they will probably pulled it because it breached someone's copyright: Oh and probably upset someone in the White House too. Although they do allow other broadcasts to go on there until someone complains that it breaches national security.