A legal aspect on filming with drones in California

[Suwaneeguy]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MheUu5YVEL0[/youtube]

This is a follow up to the video I posted about the LAPD discussing drones trespassing.

In this video, they talk about that this video caused a little stir in the DA's office.
The DA then researches the problem and comes out with the conclusion, "There is nothing we can about it!".
As long as you fly under 400 feet, you're fine.

Case in point. Actress Barbra Streissand was sunbathing on her Malibu Ca property.
She sees a helicopter flying overhead and hovering. She files an invasion of privacy charge against the pilot.
The case went to the Californa State Supreme Court where they ruled that until the camera is actually pointed into the house through the glass, then there is no "Expectation of privacy".
IOW, you have no control of airspace above your property.

I am not a super big fanatic fan of Tom Zebra, but he brings up some issues about how the cops mistreat citizens and their authority. Now that he has a drone, I'm sure we will be seeing more from him with it. As you have seen in his video, and others, the camera of these drones are not that good that even at 50 feet, can you see any real clarity and be able to see someone's face and identify them.

 

[Narrator]

If they go the way of Australia's CASA, such privacy invasions will become moot. Here, you're not allowed to fly within 30m (about 100') horizontally of people, buildings, cars or boats, without CASA approval.

 

[ianwood]

You can trust TMZ or the quack whose videos you keep posting or you could simply just look at the law. I quote again California Civil Code section 1708.8 as recently amended to cover drone use:

1708.8. (a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy
when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person
without permission or otherwise committed a trespass in order to
physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to
capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical
impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial
activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is
offensive to a reasonable person.
(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when
the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a
reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or
other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or
familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a
reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or
auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical
trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical
impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the
visual or auditory enhancing device was used.

 

[MadMitch88]

Case in point. Actress Barbra Streissand was sunbathing on her Malibu Ca property.
She sees a helicopter flying overhead and hovering. She files an invasion of privacy charge against the pilot.
The case went to the Californa State Supreme Court where they ruled that until the camera is actually pointed into the house through the glass, then there is no "Expectation of privacy".
IOW, you have no control of airspace above your property.

That's what I've been saying in here for the past 6 months.

NOBODY owns the airspace above their private property, and NOBODY has "expectation of privacy" unless someone or some object is physically touching your property or invading your house.

If I wanted to perch on top a hill overlooking a person's house and look down into their property or into their house with a zoom lens, there ain't a **** thing they can legally do to stop me.

So keep flying your Phantom over strangers' property knowing the law is on your side. If they attempt to shoot at it, then call the cops and have felony vandalism charges brought against them.

 

[sdtrojan]

I understand everything he did in his flight was quasi-legal (FAA seems to make that call), but **** dude, there sure is no better way to get restrictions put on quads than by rubbing the cops nose in it. Knock it the hell off!

 

[turbodronepilot]

This is exactly what we don't need..this is going to be blown way out of proportion ..doesn't look good for the hobby. .

 

[Khudson7]

Suwaneeguy, if you really think "he(Zebra) brings up issues where the cops mistreat citizens and their authority", you really need to find some better examples over those you keep using, produced by Tom Zebra. This whack-a-mole, is seriously demented. None of his videos, proves that point and in fact, quite the opposite. Using his videos is an embarrassment to you and your credence in anything you are trying to say.

 

[eckoner]

Well i dont think his videos are useless. I prefer he did not use a drone/uav because his videos where he just has a gopro actually allow him to get relevant footage without the distraction of flying.

He has actually posted some very good (non) Phantom videos that showed the type of police interactions that have so many up in arms.

Now flying over a police department is just stupid. Of course there is no real law that says you cant do it even though the cops tried to make something up as they usually do but its not a good idea to get in their way ever because they will make you regret it regardless if you broke the law or not.

And in regard to being afraid to fly in California....fly young jedi...Ian posted your regulations (local) follow those as well as FAA simple rules and dont do anything unsafe and you should be fine regardless of messaging from the fear mongers.

 

[The Editor]

You can trust TMZ or the quack whose videos you keep posting or you could simply just look at the law. I quote again California Civil Code section 1708.8 as recently amended to cover drone use:

1708.8. (a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy
when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person
without permission or otherwise committed a trespass in order to
physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to
capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical
impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial
activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is
offensive to a reasonable person.
(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when
the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a
reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or
other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or
familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a
reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or
auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical
trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical
impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the
visual or auditory enhancing device was used.

This is interesting Ian as surely this must also apply to every paparazzi happy snapper with a telephoto lens who sits on the public highway and points his digital SLR with 1000mm lens into the garden of Mr or Mrs famous?

I doubt it will stop the tabloids from printing those money making photos !

 

[GoodnNuff]

The day that Tom Zebra (real name Daniel Saulmon) becomes a hero on this forum signals a very sad day for drone pilots everywhere.

Google Daniel Saulmon's effects on drone laws if you think his activities are benign.

 

[eckoner]

The day that Tom Zebra (real name Daniel Saulmon) becomes a hero on this forum signals a very sad day for drone pilots everywhere.

Google Daniel Saulmon's effects on drone laws if you think his activities are benign.

I would imagine he has no clue this forum exists. He's not a hobbyist as he simply uses a Phantom as a tool to get video footage and reactions from cops.

Yes i assure you there may have been some issue or incident he may have been involved in along with his Phantom but there is not going to be any FAA or local regulations passed because of him lol and so many people here are naive thinking if we all hid in the woods and only allowed those we deem responsible pilots to fly then there would be no need for regulation.

Daniel is not going to ruin it for all of us and neither is the guy flying over the airport in Turkey! lol
Its been many years of some of you doing bad irresponsible things with guns and they have not taken those from the many who should never have had them.

I wonder if people with assault weapons hanging over the fireplace always say...."**** i wish that guy would not have went onto the school yard and killed all of those kids" "Vern...i think hes gonna ruin it for the rest of us"?

lol

 

[GoodnNuff]

Eckoner,
You are entitlled to your opinion.
I don't give a rat's *** whether Mr. Saulmon reads every post here, or is oblivious to our existance. That matters not. It's foolish to elevate him to some Civil Rights Activist - as a biracial man, I don't need this idiot working for my "civil rights." As a drone pilot, I do not need this idiot demonstrating his stupidity in ways that can affect how I fly in the future.

I can tell by your response that you haven't bothered to google how Daniel Saulmon's antics are effecting proposed California Drone restrictions.

If you don't think quad flying assholes are being watched and their antics are not making an impact on future laws, you are VERY naive.

 

[eckoner]

he does not represent me or anything i do. I know of two cops who have lost their jobs because of video footage he provided , who knows maybe more...does this justify what he does?

I would not go as far as labeling him any kind of civil rights anything lol and how has what he does effect how you fly? i guess thats the main question and issue here!

A better way to phrase it......if you were able to take every person who flies a quad and hide them all in the woods for 20 years....i assure you when we all wake up there will be regulations!

 

[GoodnNuff]

Got a link (as I asked for on an entirely different thread where you are defending Daniel Saulmon/Tom Zebra) to your allegation that Zebra is responsible for two cops being fired?

You don't offer much veracity to your claim other than "I know two cops..."

So got some facts to back your claim?

 

[N017RW]

Same arguement(s) in two topics :?:
:roll:

 

[eckoner]

Goodnnuff....im sure you know how to use google as you seem more interested than anyone else but if you cant find it i will put in some leg work for you lol and i dont want you to give me credit haha im not a kid looking for acceptance