Progress in the drone dispute?

[BrianL99]

Don's letter to the other drone operators, as published in local news sources.

Seems much more conciliatory than "Game On B!t.h

BTW, "BVLOS" means: "Beyond Visual Line of Sight".

[Stu from NYC]

Don's letter to the other drone operators, as published in local news sources.

Seems much more conciliatory than "Game On B!t.h

Vey interesting thanks for sharing

[Bogie Shooter]

“Game on Bi@#h” doesn’t come across as very professional. The PDF is more like what I would expect from Don.

[BrianL99]

I'll go out on a limb and speculate on the "settlement" that will likely be forthcoming, before any real litigation starts.

Don and at least 1 other, will be allowed to continue making drone videos, with restrictions and vetting by the Developer.

Anyone who violated an FAA standard (BVLOS) will be threatened and as a condition of the Developer dropping the action, they'll apologize & get out of the TV Drone over-fly business.

The "other shoe to drop", is how this might effect Don Wiley's career as a County Commissioner, vis a vis, ethical standards for elected officials, involved in a controversy with someone who is often interacting with the Board of County Commissioners.

Expect an opinion letter from the Florida Commission on Ethics, if a settlement is reached.

.... just reading between the lines and rampant speculation.

[BrianL99]

Call me cynical, but is this part of the letter somewhat disingenuous?

The Developer used (presumably) snail mail to address his issues.

Within minutes, every drone operator ran to social media and posted the letter and/or new videos, decrying the Developer's actions. Now, the social media activity is doing harm to the community and county?

To say nothing of the fact, either the sender or one of the recipients of Don's letter, immediately went to the press and/or social media and posted it.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[Bill14564]

Call me cynical, but is this part of the letter somewhat disingenuous?

The Developer used (presumably) snail mail to address his issues.

Within minutes, every drone operator ran to social media and posted the letter and/or new videos, decrying the Developer's actions. Now, the social media activity is doing harm to the community and county?

To say nothing of the fact, either the sender or one of the recipients of Don's letter, immediately went to the press and/or social media and posted it.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I wouldn't use the word disingenuous, I would use futile. Wiley can attempt to take the lead on this and work with the Developer to find a resolution but he can't control what the other operators do. "Herding cats" is a phrase that might apply.

[asianthree]

Guessing legal counsel was involved with any letter written, that could be made public

[VAtoFLA]

This is the "Game On". He realistically sees the best and least expensive path to what he wants as working with the Developer. If the Developer also gets what they want, why would he care? He's only interested in the outcome he prefers.

Don didn't run to social media. Papa Pineapples did and then several questioned why Don hadn't received a letter and made speculations, then Don revealed that he received the letter as well. Addressing it and then also recognizing that the harm of continuing to address it publicly isn't disingenuous, it's a balancing act and Don seems to have chosen his current point of equilibrium.

Knowing the Developer's concerns, I also have a softer feel for the letter. I have seen at least one drone video where the pilot flys it through a partially built home. That could certainly be dangerous.

I hope they resolve it in a way that makes both sides as happy as they can be.

[charlie1]

Don stated that he met with the developer and that there WERE VIOLATIONS by some of the flyers that apparently triggered the developer's action. That news would also make me "back off" as then the developer has a case to maybe stop all from flying. Don wants to fly and do the videos. He loves doing it. He mellowed to help not only himself but other drone operators who do obey the laws! I would guess there will be an agreement in this dispute. Just not sure what it will be at this time.

[Topspinmo]

IMO FAA rules clean cut.

QUOTE from Google.

While generally legal to fly drones over private property in Florida, operators must adhere to FAA regulations and avoid violating privacy and trespassing laws, particularly regarding capturing images or videos of people in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
FAA Regulations:
The FAA governs drone usage in the United States through Part 107, which outlines safety guidelines and registration requirements for both recreational and commercial operators.
Key FAA Rules:
Maintain a visual line of sight (VLOS) with your drone.
Fly at or below 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
Keep your drone away from airports and restricted airspace.
Privacy and Trespassing:
It's illegal to fly a drone over a person who is not participating in the drone operation.
It's illegal to use the drone to take a photo of any person on private property in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Trespassing and nuisance laws apply to drone use over private property.
Landowner Rights:
Landowners can take steps to address unwanted drone activity, including collecting records and evidence, reporting incidents to the police, and considering drone tracking technologies.
Some landowners may also want to register their land as a no-fly zone.
Moving Vehicles:
Drone pilots should avoid flying over moving vehicles as much as possible.
The FAA regulations require drone pilots to ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft

[Bill14564]

IMO FAA rules clean cut.

QUOTE from Google.

...

Where did you find those FAA rules? What I have found looks a bit different.

Which of those rules do you claim the TV drone pilots have violated?

The clear violations listed in the letter absolutely must be discontinued but they seem to account for a tiny amount of the content that has been produced.

[BrianL99]

IMO FAA rules clean cut.


It's illegal to fly a drone over a person who is not participating in the drone operation.

Some landowners may also want to register their land as a no-fly zone.



Can you please provide the web address where I would go to register my land as a "no-fly zone".

Where would one report a drone flying over me, when I'm not participating in the drone operation?

[asianthree]

Can you please provide the web address where I would go to register my land as a "no-fly zone".

Where would one report a drone flying over me, when I'm not participating in the drone operation?

Aprils fools, or Sheldon sign?

[BlueStarAirlines]

IMO FAA rules clean cut.

QUOTE from Google.

While generally legal to fly drones over private property in Florida, operators must adhere to FAA regulations and avoid violating privacy and trespassing laws, particularly regarding capturing images or videos of people in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:


We found one of the internet lawyer Don was referencing!

[txfan]

All of these aerial views of The Villages construction was started as a hobby - for most.

In one flyer's case, it became more than that. This person now poor mouths himself exhaustively that the videos cannot be made without subscribers and advertisers, when early on, there were none.

The chastising of Villagers supposedly driving in construction zones is exactly what he does flying low through neighborhoods, or buildings under construction, parking on Villages property and operating his business along the roadsides.

I've witnessed first-hand him chasing prospective homeowners down on their dirt lots to solicit his business of documenting their home's construction - for a healthy fee.

The hobbyists all do a good job telling the story of The Villages, but only one continues to beg for support of his advertisers by soliciting subscribers. It makes the videos hard to watch when someone who for years did just fine as a hobbyist, now requires financing to continue making videos.

And as a paid county commissioner, there seems to be some level of conflict of interest when someone uses his "real" job to help dig through files and records to pride himself in "scooping" the developer on what's to come. That's what has led to the developer's response, I believe.

[Fastskiguy]

And as a paid county commissioner, there seems to be some level of conflict of interest when someone uses his "real" job to help dig through files and records to pride himself in "scooping" the developer on what's to come. That's what has led to the developer's response, I believe.

Or possibly they were willing to tolerate Don's flying but when hooligans started flying thru buildings under construction ( I mean....what the heck??!!) they were forced to do something.

Joe

[Marathon Man]

All of these aerial views of The Villages construction was started as a hobby - for most.

In one flyer's case, it became more than that. This person now poor mouths himself exhaustively that the videos cannot be made without subscribers and advertisers, when early on, there were none.

The chastising of Villagers supposedly driving in construction zones is exactly what he does flying low through neighborhoods, or buildings under construction, parking on Villages property and operating his business along the roadsides.

I've witnessed first-hand him chasing prospective homeowners down on their dirt lots to solicit his business of documenting their home's construction - for a healthy fee.

The hobbyists all do a good job telling the story of The Villages, but only one continues to beg for support of his advertisers by soliciting subscribers. It makes the videos hard to watch when someone who for years did just fine as a hobbyist, now requires financing to continue making videos.

And as a paid county commissioner, there seems to be some level of conflict of interest when someone uses his "real" job to help dig through files and records to pride himself in "scooping" the developer on what's to come. That's what has led to the developer's response, I believe.

Wow. Not the first time you have you have said this. Tell us you do not like a certain person without saying that you do not like a certain person.

[Danube]

Where did you find those FAA rules? What I have found looks a bit different.

Which of those rules do you claim the TV drone pilots have violated?

The clear violations listed in the letter absolutely must be discontinued but they seem to account for a tiny amount of the content that has been produced.


Looks like it's AI generated.

[Danube]

Can you please provide the web address where I would go to register my land as a "no-fly zone".

Where would one report a drone flying over me, when I'm not participating in the drone operation?


I did a Google search and it said you can use AI to register your land as a no-fly zone or report drones.

[Stu from NYC]

Or possibly they were willing to tolerate Don's flying but when hooligans started flying thru buildings under construction ( I mean....what the heck??!!) they were forced to do something.

Joe

Don does do an inspection via drone for people having houses being constructed. Wonder how low he needs to go in order to do this?

[CybrSage]

Don does do an inspection via drone for people having houses being constructed. Wonder how low he needs to go in order to do this?

If he has the homeowner's permission, there is no problem flying the drone over the land.
He just has to follow the safety rules.

[Bill14564]

If he has the homeowner's permission, there is no problem flying the drone over the land.
He just has to follow the safety rules.

No permission is needed to fly over nearly any fixed object (certain airspace is restricted and there are rules about flying over people or moving vehicles).

Flying into a building under construction or flying near a person is something else.

While the home is being constructed, the "homeowner" is the Villages. There is a prospective buyer but ownership has not changed hands at that point.

[Maker]

I'll go out on a limb and speculate on the "settlement" that will likely be forthcoming, before any real litigation starts.

Don and at least 1 other, will be allowed to continue making drone videos, with restrictions and vetting by the Developer.

Don, and every other person who flies a drone, can fly them at will. Nobody needs permission from any private entity except under very specific conditions.
That is the FAA rules, and the developer cannot trump federal law.

[Maker]

Can you please provide the web address where I would go to register my land as a "no-fly zone".

Where would one report a drone flying over me, when I'm not participating in the drone operation?

You have to meet requirements to be registered as a no fly zone. Permanent zones are around places such as airports where collisions are a possibility.
Temporary zones are in place around certain special conditions, such as the vicinity around air force 1 when the president is aboard.

So you can build a runway and have it operational daily, or get elected president. Otherwise the law is the law.

[Bilyclub]

Perhaps there needs to be a bad drone pilot thread similar to the bad driving/parking threads on social media.

[kingofbeer]

Perhaps there needs to be a bad drone pilot thread similar to the bad driving/parking threads on social media.
The Villages can claim damages and harm caused by Don's posting of videos and his commentary.

[BrianL99]

I did a Google search and it said you can use AI to register your land as a no-fly zone or report drones.

Please let me know when you get your property listing on the Registry as a "No Fly Zone" and how it's working out for you.

Thank you

[BrianL99]

If he has the homeowner's permission, there is no problem flying the drone over the land.
He just has to follow the safety rules.

Except that, if the home is "under construction", the land and everything on it, belongs to The Villages.

[BrianL99]

Don, and every other person who flies a drone, can fly them at will. Nobody needs permission from any private entity except under very specific conditions.
That is the FAA rules, and the developer cannot trump federal law.

If they are flying under 400', the FAA doesn't control the air space. It is unregulated, Class G airspace.

Flying drones is not the issue.

Taking video and publishing it on social media is the primary issue.

Please don't confuse what's at issue here.

[Topspinmo]

IMO FAA rules clean cut.

QUOTE from Google.

While generally legal to fly drones over private property in Florida, operators must adhere to FAA regulations and avoid violating privacy and trespassing laws, particularly regarding capturing images or videos of people in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
FAA Regulations:
The FAA governs drone usage in the United States through Part 107, which outlines safety guidelines and registration requirements for both recreational and commercial operators.
Key FAA Rules:
Maintain a visual line of sight (VLOS) with your drone.
Fly at or below 400 feet above ground level (AGL).
Keep your drone away from airports and restricted airspace.
Privacy and Trespassing:
It's illegal to fly a drone over a person who is not participating in the drone operation.
It's illegal to use the drone to take a photo of any person on private property in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Trespassing and nuisance laws apply to drone use over private property.
Landowner Rights:
Landowners can take steps to address unwanted drone activity, including collecting records and evidence, reporting incidents to the police, and considering drone tracking technologies.
Some landowners may also want to register their land as a no-fly zone.
Moving Vehicles:
Drone pilots should avoid flying over moving vehicles as much as possible.
The FAA regulations require drone pilots to ensure that the small unmanned aircraft will pose no undue hazard to other people, other aircraft, or other property in the event of a loss of control of the aircraft

Simple search on drone flying rules in Florida. Not my words google it popped right up.

[Topspinmo]

Where did you find those FAA rules? What I have found looks a bit different.

Which of those rules do you claim the TV drone pilots have violated?

The clear violations listed in the letter absolutely must be discontinued but they seem to account for a tiny amount of the content that has been produced.


None, I don’t care one way or they other.

[Bill14564]

If they are flying under 400', the FAA doesn't control the air space. It is unregulated, Class G airspace.

Flying drones is not the issue.

Taking video and publishing it on social media is the primary issue.

Please don't confuse what's at issue here.

The FAA sees things a bit differently. From this FAA Airspace 101 page (https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airspace_101):
FAA rules apply to the entire National Airspace System -- there is no such thing as "unregulated" airspace.

Drones can fly below 400' in the uncontrolled Class G airspace but the FAA does have authority over that airspace.

But as you point out, for the most part the issue is the videography and not the actual flight.

[Topspinmo]

Can you please provide the web address where I would go to register my land as a "no-fly zone".

Where would one report a drone flying over me, when I'm not participating in the drone operation?

Sorry I only do simple google searches.

Quote From Google



AI Overview
Learn more
While you can't directly "register" land as a no-fly zone, you can take steps to discourage drone use over your property and potentially seek legal recourse if necessary, focusing on local ordinances and privacy laws.
Here's a breakdown of how to approach this:
1. Understand the Legal Landscape:
Federal Regulations:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates drone operations, but it's generally legal to fly drones over private property, as long as certain rules are followed (e.g., staying below 400 feet, maintaining visual line of sight, registering drones over 0.55 pounds, and obtaining a Part 107 certificate for commercial use).
State Laws (Florida):
Florida has the Florida Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act (330.41) that generally preempts local drone laws, but cities and municipalities can still pass laws on specific topics like privacy and harassment.
Local Ordinances:
Check for any specific ordinances in The Villages or The Villages area that might restrict drone use, especially regarding privacy or harassment.
2. Take Preventative Measures:
Clear Signage:
Post "No Drone Zone" or similar signs on your property to deter drone operators.
Communicate with Neighbors:
Discuss drone concerns with neighbors to foster a sense of community awareness and potentially coordinate efforts.
Document Drone Activity:
If you observe drone activity that you believe is violating your privacy or property rights, document the time, date, location, and any relevant details.
3. Seek Legal Advice and Enforcement:
Contact Local Authorities:
If you encounter drone activity that violates local ordinances or state laws, contact the local police department or relevant authorities.
Consult with an Attorney:
If you believe your privacy or property rights have been violated, consult with an attorney specializing in drone law to explore legal options.
Consider Privacy Laws:
Florida has laws regarding the use of drones to capture images of private property without consent, and you can explore these laws to protect your privacy.
Drone Laws in Florida (2025) - UAV Coach
This ordinance also requires that commercial drone pilots register with the town police department before doing any kind of commer...
UAV Coach

Florida Drone Laws - Jack Bernstein, Injury Attorneys
Florida Law 330.41 – Florida Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act A large portion of Florida drone law comes from the Florida Unmanned Ai...
Jack Bernstein Injury Law

Part 107 Waivers - Federal Aviation Administration
Step 3: Submit the waiver application. * Log in or create an account online at FAADroneZone. Click on the button labeled “Add a S...

Federal Aviation Administration (.gov)

Show all
Generative AI is experimental. For legal advice, consult a professional

[Justputt]

No permission is needed to fly over nearly any fixed object (certain airspace is restricted and there are rules about flying over people or moving vehicles).

Flying into a building under construction or flying near a person is something else.

While the home is being constructed, the "homeowner" is the Villages. There is a prospective buyer but ownership has not changed hands at that point.

However, the land/lot had to paid for in advance. We had to put 10% down to secure the lot and the balance paid once the home building contract was signed. For those of us that built, we paid the lot off before the first concrete pour was even planned.

[Bill14564]

Sorry I only do simple google searches.

Quote From Google

AI Overview
...
Generative AI is experimental. For legal advice, consult a professional

There's part of the problem. Generative AI gives a guess at a summary based on whatever text it was trained on. Guesses at summaries can be wrong, details matter.

[Stu from NYC]

However, the land/lot had to paid for in advance. We had to put 10% down to secure the lot and the balance paid once the home building contract was signed. For those of us that built, we paid the lot off before the first concrete pour was even planned.

Had no idea you have to pay in full that early

[VAtoFLA]

It's still not yours until the transaction closes. You may feel differently, but these are legal definitions.

[BrianL99]

However, the land/lot had to paid for in advance. We had to put 10% down to secure the lot and the balance paid once the home building contract was signed. For those of us that built, we paid the lot off before the first concrete pour was even planned.

It's still not yours until the transaction closes. You may feel differently, but these are legal definitions.

I could be wrong and I'd be interested to hear if I am ... but

I believe you are required to "deposit" the amount of the land cost, prior to construction, but there is no "deed" (Grant) involved.

Which would mean you have an equitable interest in the land, but no "ownership" of the land.

If there was an actual "closing" and you took possession of the land and then signed a new contract for "construction", that would be a different story.

In essence, I'm saying the same thing as VAtoFLA said, above. It may sound like semantics, but there's a significant legal difference in those 2 processes.

[RRGuyNJ]

Who thought it was OK to actually fly inside a building under construction? That's just common sense and downright inconsiderate!

The fact that even the "Homeowner" that is contracted to purchase the home is not really the "Homeowner" until the home is completed and closed would be a problem for me. If I contract to build a home I will be on site pretty much everyday if possible. I couldn't handle having a house built and not be allowed on site during construction.

[BillyGrown]

However, the land/lot had to paid for in advance. We had to put 10% down to secure the lot and the balance paid once the home building contract was signed. For those of us that built, we paid the lot off before the first concrete pour was even planned.

Correct, the lot is paid for before a home is ever constructed. We bought our lot in Moultrie Creek. We had to put money down, then we had a design appointment, then we had to pay for the lot in full before we left for them to build.

A shout out to Goldwingnut, we love what you do and are glad you didn’t cave to the builder. Keep em coming. You do a great service for us all.

[Stu from NYC]

Who thought it was OK to actually fly inside a building under construction? That's just common sense and downright inconsiderate!

The fact that even the "Homeowner" that is contracted to purchase the home is not really the "Homeowner" until the home is completed and closed would be a problem for me. If I contract to build a home I will be on site pretty much everyday if possible. I couldn't handle having a house built and not be allowed on site during construction.

I wonder how low Don Wiley will go in showing new homeowner the house under construction? Does he actually fly inside the house? I saw Don flying a drone inside a rec room and he does have great control over the drone.

[Kerry Azz]

I wonder how low Don Wiley will go in showing new homeowner the house under construction? Does he actually fly inside the house? I saw Don flying a drone inside a rec room and he does have great control over the drone.

Flying in the Villages and following the FAA Rules is legal, I have been flying for years but what you need to understand is your living in the villages where people have nothing better to do than to complain about anything and everything, Follow the FAA rules and regulations and you’ll be fine , as a courtesy don’t fly over people or cars or the squares when there’s an event use common sense always fly safe safely and enjoy your flight. Maybe the powers to be in the villages don’t want you flying over their sites for reasons that might legally come back to them in a negative way!

[BillyGrown]

We were greatly influenced by your videos Don. Keep them comimg.

[Maker]

Flying drones is not the issue.
Taking video and publishing it on social media is the primary issue.


Developer sent letters to only drone pilots.
No letters to anyone else posting videos of the area.
No letters to anybody posting their opinions online, such as this forum. Many of those posts are very negative towards what happens here.
No letters to anyone else doing very similar activities.

Putting info on social media is constitutionally protected free speech. Kindly explain how that "is the issue" considering their actions were taken only against drone operators. That does not fit the events that have happened.

[BrianL99]

Putting info on social media is constitutionally protected free speech. Kindly explain how that "is the issue" considering their actions were taken only against drone operators. That does not fit the events that have happened.


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

[graciegirl]

I could be wrong and I'd be interested to hear if I am ... but

I believe you are required to "deposit" the amount of the land cost, prior to construction, but there is no "deed" (Grant) involved.

Which would mean you have an equitable interest in the land, but no "ownership" of the land.

If there was an actual "closing" and you took possession of the land and then signed a new contract for "construction", that would be a different story.

In essence, I'm saying the same thing as VAtoFLA said, above. It may sound like semantics, but there's a significant legal difference in those 2 processes.

That sounds right to me.

[Maker]

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.

[BrianL99]

A "no trespassing" sign does NOT apply to airspace. .

Ahhh .... I see.

So Americans are entitle to privacy by closing their doors & curtains and posting their property as "No Trespassing", but over the last 20 years, we've lost the right to privacy from above?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

& the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Causby (1946) has some how been nullified?

As I attempted to point out. The issue being discussed, is unrelated to "drones", it's related to aerial video surveillance and posting (according to the Developer) illegally obtained videos, on social media sites.

You can legally drive your car down the road, but when you start shooting at people from your car, it becomes a different issue. The car has little or nothing to do with, what you're doing from your vehicle is the issue.

[Bill14564]

Ahhh .... I see.

So Americans are entitle to privacy by closing there doors & curtains and posting their property as "No Trespassing", but over the last 20 years, we've lost the right to privacy from above?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

& the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Causby (1946) has some how been nullified?

As I attempted to point out. The issue being discussed, is unrelated to "drones", it's related to aerial video surveillance and posting (according to the Developer) illegally obtained videos, on social media sites.

You can legally drive your car down the road, but when you start shooting at people from your car, it becomes a different issue. The car has little or nothing to do with, what you're doing from your vehicle is the issue.

We've never had a right to privacy from above, we just haven't had anything above to be concerned about.

In what way were the videos illegally obtained?

A "No Trespassing" sign has nothing to do with privacy, it has to do with physical presence on private property. Since you do not own the airspace over your property, flying over a property does not represent a physical presence and a "No Trespassing" sign has no applicability.

You are misinterpreting Causby. Causby affirmed that you do not own the airspace over your home above a safe minimum altitude. Causby held that activities in the public airspace which interfered with the use of enjoyment of the private property can be considered a "taking." Unless the drone flights are so low that they interfere with construction, Causby does not apply.

[kingofbeer]

If he has the homeowner's permission, there is no problem flying the drone over the land.
He just has to follow the safety rules.
Uh.. The house is under construction and is not owned by the future homeowner yet.

[DrHitch]

As a FAA 107 certified pilot, I commend Don for taking a leadership position with the other named drone pilots .

From his letter, it's apparent that some pilots have pushed The envelope of safe and certified FAA 107 flying practices.

All certified flyers really need to adhere to the rules of not flying bvlos, never flying over people, and surely not harassing construction workers or flying through buildings...

I'm sure that calmer minds will prevail, and quality legal informational flights will continue.

[Kerry Azz]

You Can’t register your land as a no fly zone.