The FAA has jurisdiction over airspace. No entity can ban drones in the air space over their property. There are exceptions to flying for surveillance purposes, but think of that as a detective (or group of them) following someone as they drive around in their car. Seeing what is happening at some random point in time, over a wide swath of land, is not even remotely classified as surveillance.
Courts have decided that incidental encounters from the air do not violate right to privacy. If that was the case, no planes could fly. No helicopters could fly. Satellite maps could not be produced.
The letters from TV lawyers allege violation of drone regulations were committed. If they cannot legally prove that is true, they have damaged the drone operator's reputation. That IS a crime, for which punitive damages can be awarded.
The letters from TV lawyers are demanding C&D plus removal of past videos. That is backed up with threats of legal action (and the related costs for damages). Since those drone activities are 100% legal, those demands amount to an attempt to restrict the operators constitutional rights. That IS a BIG crime, for which HUGE punitive damages are often awarded.
For the Swift hypothetical - yes that is legal. Been affirmed by many courts. But not if flying over people. But not if the airspace is restricted by the FAA (highly unlikely).
For the "No Cameras allowed" hypothetical - that restriction is also legal since it applies to things happening on the ground. It is irrelevant to drones since airspace is not subject to the venue's rules.
Very different for signs that might say "no drones". That has no legal authority because airspace is governed by the FAA, not property owner.
I wonder what would happen if the developer arrested a drone operator. The big lawyer firms would fight for a piece of that civil rights lawsuit.
The developer's actions do NOT "protect everyone’s personal rights". Those rights are defined by law. If they are really trying to change the laws, going after a few drone operators is not going to change anything for "everyone". The law is not being changed by those actions, and the drone operators are following the law. It can be viewed as harassment, and punitive damages can be awarded.
If they wanted to "protect privacy" the developer needs to change the law. Even a freshman law student knows that.
If the developer wants to control the narrative, and deploy their own drones, they need to follow the exact same laws as the other drone operators have to follow. Perhaps they should have hired the people that were already doing videos. Partner with them. Use their experience and skills to enhance the narrative. Maybe even provide private information to control the release of fresh information. With a good relationship in place, if there is something speculative, errors could be prevented. Imagine the hype that could be built up as "see how this new XYZ is coming along" this week. Instead of "how can we threaten them", it should have been "how can we leverage them for a huge PR advantage".
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianL99
What’s being discussed, is a fundamental change in the people’s expectation of privacy and I don’t see that the 1st Amendment gives anyone more than the right to “speak”, but not “peep”.
How about if you enjoy having a nude pool parties? You build a 9’ wall around your pool, so no one can see. Your nosy neighbor rents a “boom truck” to trim some trees in his yard, but also snaps some photos of your nude pool party. Fair & reasonable?
You’re Disney World and you come up with an idea for an attraction, that no one’s ever thought of. You start to build it and Universal Studios sends its drones up, to see what you’re building. Fair?
You’re a Mall owner and want to make a big splash, when a new store opens in your mail, so you “black out” all the windows, while construction/fitup of the new store is going on. We see it every day and no one bats an eyelash at such attempts at privacy.
You’re giving a birthday party for your 17 year old daughter and pay $1,000,000 for Taylor Swift to perform at the party. It’s ok if the local TV station parks their drone overhead, to film and records her performance and shows it on their 11 pm news?
How many events have you been to in your life, where there’s a sign at the gate that says: No Cameras allowed? We may not like it, but we expect it. It’s only fair.
Everyone expects “privacy” behind closed doors & windows, but we shouldn’t have the same privacy from above? Lateral privacy is expected, but vertical is not?
The Developer (for whatever reasons) is pursuing a course of action, that will only serve to protect everyone’s personal rights. You may not like his motivation, but his motive serves to protects our own best interests and expectations.
Just because there’s a “business interest" involved, doesn't make the cause any less noble.
If the Developer wants to control the narrative about his business and plans, that should be his right. The erosion of personal rights and perogatives, is something we should all abhor.
Personally, I think Don Wiley’s motivations are legitimate. He simply wants to provide accurate information. I don’t think the Developer has any interest in torturing him (although his recent social media posts seem inflammatory).
The others, I’m not so sure about. Mr. Wiley runs a business, the majority of drone “operators” are nothing more than voyeurs of some sort or another and may be in for a rude awakening. I support the Developer's position, 1000% and it's about time someone with deep pockets, took on this threat to our privacy and life as we knew it.
|