Designed to combat flights over private property by paparazzi photographers looking to get glimpses of celebrities in their "natural elements," a new bill, AB 856, signed by California Governor Jerry Brown Tuesday, broadens the definition of a "physical invasion of privacy" to include flying a drone to record images or video over private property. While countless issues surrounding invasion of privacy and drone usage have appeared on the Internet over the years (including one instance of a father shooting down a drone recording his daughter sunbathing in their backyard), this expansion could pose more danger to well-intentioned videographers.
Governor Brown has a history of rejecting increased regulation on drones, including restrictions on flying over wildfires, prisons, and schools, citing a belief that such restrictions have little benefit, while having the consequence of creating new crimes. However, firefighters have stated in the past that drone flights over wildfires are indeed serious issues that have grounded firefighting aircraft out of a concern for safety, reducing the entire team's firefighting ability. Meanwhile, drones have also delivered contraband into prisons.
Restricting drone use above all private land places new challenges on legitimate drone operators that will now need to pay closer attention to the exact airspace that they are flying within and whether or not it is over private land. Some legitimate cases of this might include simple flights over a city or town that do not peer into backyards at low altitude, but might instead record a video of the sun setting over an entire cityscape. Technically speaking, drone operators will now have to ensure that they are recording from directly above public property.
Realistically, however, if the drone is not pointed directly downward at a rather low altitude, it would be impossible to prove just exactly from which square inch of space a drone recorded a particular video, which means most operators shooting simple establishing shots can most likely continue to do so.
[Via LATimes]
In America, every drone gets shot down. Every time.
Europe's propensity judging and for caving in is well know in the US.
I support this (not that it means anything since I live in a different state). It isn't so much the professionals that are causing issues but the 20 year old hobbyist who isn't thinking about anything but making a viral video.
Exactly. That's the problem. This law -- something like it, at least -- needed to be around for certain common-sense protections. But these kinds of laws also risk making legitimate content creation more difficult or risky. Unfortunately, the law is built for the lowest common denominator. So I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before the hobbyists that are irresponsible ruin it for the rest of us... I'm just hoping laws can be specific, clear, and continue to be restrictive in some areas while being accommodating where they still need to be.
I wouldn't say it's just kids. Obviously this law stems primarily from rabid paparazzi, who are in this professionally. It's all about money, and fùck people's privacy. "Kids" had little to do with this.
It's inevitable that drone usage will be out of control, because in this day and age, "it's all about me".
I have nothing against responsible drone users (although I have fun at their expense), but just wait till Amazon (and the rest) is sending its loud, annoying machines screeching over our homes and beautiful areas delivering pizza and cola.
It has already carved up our skies into layers to suit its delivery drone business.
Were you asked? No.
Do they care? No.
Because money.
A rock is the answer, thrown with accuracy and righteousness!
Please visit my facebook page, Throw Stones at Drones.
https://www.facebook.com/Throw-Stones-at-Drones-444203285757072/timeline...
W.S. Gilbert, a British magistrate and famous librettist wrote to The Times on 3 June 1903:
“ Sir,–I am delighted with the suggestion made by your spirited correspondent Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey that all pedestrians shall be legally empowered to discharge shotguns (the size of the shot to be humanely restricted to No. 8 or No. 9) at all motorists who may appear to them to be driving to the common danger. Not only would this provide a speedy and effective punishment for the erring motorist, but it would also supply the dwellers on popular highroads with a comfortable increase of income. "Motor shooting for a single gun" would appeal strongly to the sporting instincts of the true Briton, and would provide ample compensation to the proprietors of eligible road-side properties for the intolerable annoyance caused by the enemies of mankind. "
A few items to ponder. One, it has long been held that only the FAA has the authority to regulate airspace. Expect a challenge. Two, videographers still need their FAA section 333 exemption to fly commercially which require that the drone be piloted by a licensed aircraft pilot. Not many of those have been issued. Finally, the current class of drones record via gps where the drone has been. Assuming that courts can collect that info, technology will render the "I wasn't there" argument moot.