Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianL99
Unless folks were flying around with jet packs on their backs, I'm not sure how they could produce the same sort of video as a drone can produce.
TV construction sites are almost always posted with "No Trespassing" signs, which means unless the videographers have the aforementioned "jet packs" or are using a drone to take video ... it can't be done.
You suspect some movie starlet is nude sun bathing on her rooftop and want to see her and sell some photos to the National Inquirer ... but her home is posted with "No Trespassing" signs? How do you get to see her? Use your Jet Pack or Drone to beat the No Trespassing signs and take the photos.
The public is prohibited from peeking in the windows of your home and taking photos, but any clown with a Drone has no such prohibition?
Therein lies the issue. That exactly fits the events. Otherwise unavailable videos, were posted on the internet. One's 1st Amendment rights of free speech, are tempered by the obligation to obtain the information legitimately. See Lee v. Internet Entertainment Group, Inc., 33 F. App'x 886
|
A "no trespassing" sign does NOT apply to airspace. Jetpack? LOL. That's really reaching for anything to defend that position. Must be running out of ideas?
"Movie starlet" has nothing to do with anything. But even a flyover and randomly recording her is 100% legal. That's the law. Offering that situation repeatedly will not change the law.
Looking into windows is a whole different topic. None of the drone pilots here are doing that, so that argument is still moot.
"lies the issue" huh? That's flat out wrong. I get you are against drones, but making up unrelated fictional situations, and then trying to connect those to what is going on, is a false assertion of irrelevant circumstances. They have zero merit.