I hadn't considered this application for drone technology, but it's an interesting way to look at abandoned places (in this case Belle Isle Zoo in Detroit, closed since 2002) that doesn't involve risk of life or limb (or trespassing charges).
Originally shared by +Les Jenkins:
65 view(s)
Actually, I heard an interview with a professor of Tort Law the other day who mentioned that depending on the height (he didn't specify), the operator of a drone could actually be charged with trespassing. Its an evolving area.
+The Bruce, Mile High Interesting. I suppose it makes sense. Still, a bit less personally risky form of tresspass, though with limitations (for the moment) on where you can go.
Currently, the assumption is that property owners do not own the airspace above their buildings. Granted, there are privacy aspects to consider (peeping toms hovering their aircraft over people's backyards filming sunbathers, looking through windows, etc). But for the most part, the only legal issues to consider are provided by the FAA, which govern the public airspace.
For now, it is no different than satellite or airplane images/videos. My flights are essentially governed by the same sets of rules. And no, I am not interested in surveillance or invading anyone's privacy. Just filming things I find interesting in some way. 🙂
Hope you enjoyed the video!
I understand what you're saying, +TheGadgetGuy1, and I'll try to find a transcript of the interview. But this was a topic the Tort Law professor specifically addressed: it is not simply an FAA airspace issue.
As I recall, he did concede there is currently an evolving body of case law but was clear it was not simply peeping tom type issues versus the height at which FAA regulations take over. Since this is an evolving field, I suspect there is still considerable differences between jurisdictions.
Given a judge recently ruled ‘upskirt photography’ of unsuspecting women was constitutionally protected free-speech, there will be some interesting court cases involving peeping toms!