[CybrSage]

I am not a legal expert, but reading Florida SB 767, which was signed into law, it appears there must be an expectation of privacy in order to ban the drone flights. Line 82 forward defines what that is. The drone also has to stay in a line of sight and he greater than 50 feet. I believe that part is from federal law

"72 (3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
73 (a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather
74 evidence or other information.
75 (b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as
76 defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging
77 device to record an image of privately owned real property or of
78 the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such
79 property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the
80 individual or property captured in the image in violation of
81 such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or
82 her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is
83 presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or
84 her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable
85 by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a
86 legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable
87 from the air with the use of a drone."

[midiwiz]

Originally Posted by NoMo50

Not sure where you may have read that, but the Developer has ZERO authority to ban anything in the airspace above their construction areas. Only the FAA can dictate how the federal airspace is used. The Developer CAN certainly prohibit drone pilots, and anyone else for that matter, from trespassing on their private property. This would prevent drone pilots from using Villages private property for takeoff and landings. But, once that drone is in the air, the Developer has no control over where it flies.

Almost, here's the rub

"Private Property" this is a grey area, yes they own the property, however building on it so it's technically not so private. This can and probably will be argued.

Tresspassing, the legal definition of a piece of land also includes air space above it. They would have to be outside that air space, which if the drone is traveling the streets (so to say) then it's 100% legal as that is considered public property. It is unlike a HOA, as the county is responsible for road maintenence here not TV

[CybrSage]

Originally Posted by countrycomfort1

well if they can fly drones over air bases why can’t you fly them over a construction site

You cannot fly drones over airbases. They are restricted airspace.

[airstreamingypsy]

I hope the drone flyers win, but am worried at what cost. They will need deep pockets.

[midiwiz]

Originally Posted by CybrSage

I am not a legal expert, but reading Florida SB 767, which was signed into law, it appears there must be an expectation of privacy in order to ban the drone flights. Line 82 forward defines what that is. The drone also has to stay in a line of sight and he greater than 50 feet. I believe that part is from federal law

"72 (3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—
73 (a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather
74 evidence or other information.
75 (b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision as
76 defined in s. 11.45 may not use a drone equipped with an imaging
77 device to record an image of privately owned real property or of
78 the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such
79 property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the
80 individual or property captured in the image in violation of
81 such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or
82 her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is
83 presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or
84 her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable
85 by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a
86 legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable
87 from the air with the use of a drone."

Yes but here's the phrase that will be of debate in court -

"with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property"

From a legal perspective the word surveillance has to be determined in this context, these guys aren't actually performing surveillance, now if they are hired to monitor the build of a home, then yes they COULD lose this battle, however the fly overs for what is going on and where it's headed is not considered surveillance.

[CybrSage]

Originally Posted by midiwiz

Very much correct, the developer pretty much "owns" the local courts, HOWEVER they are scared of the Federal Courts, which is exactly where I would take this case. They'll lose in a heartbeat.

I think the real reason is sales are down and they don't want anyone to know how crappy they are building down there.

It would go to State Court first. The developer would have to show there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a construction zone in order for it to violate State Law.
State Law is more restrictive than fed law in this instance and it spells out that if the person can be seen from the ground, outside of private property, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. If they cannot be, but can be seen from the air, there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I posted the law, above.

[G.R.I.T.S.]

Airspace is not “private property.”

[CybrSage]

Originally Posted by midiwiz

now if they are hired to monitor the build of a home, then yes they COULD lose this battle, however the fly overs for what is going on and where it's headed is not considered surveillance.

I agree. Though at least with Don, he only does building films if the homeowner (purchaser) requests it. I suspect that would be good enough for a judge to say the surveillance is authorized.
I could easily be wrong as I only use common English and legal definitions are sometimes the exact opposite of the word's everyday use.

[CybrSage]

Originally Posted by G.R.I.T.S.

Airspace is not “private property.”

Yes and no. Up to 50 feet above the property is still considered private property wet flying a drone.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by mikemalloy

I had the opportunity to see Don's well reasoned and knowledgible response to the letter he received. In a nutshell, a lawyer (from CA) wrote to him on behalf of the owner and told him that he had no proper license and no legal right to do what he has been doing. It's Don's position, which he backed up with authority, that he does.
In my experience, some junior lawyer in the mailing firm was assigned the job of getting rid of Don's videos. He may have done a little research, but it's clear from his letter than he had no legal authority to cite to back him up. So he just used the threat of expensive legal costs to engage in what we now call lawfare. I thihk Don is going to fight and from what I can gather, he'll eventually win.

Hopefully he will win but what will it cost him to do so? In the videos I have seen he has basically been a cheerleader for the Villages. Hope we can see the letter and his response.

[Regorp]

Originally Posted by MarioNappa

In this video, I will update you on an issue I and others have been facing with the drone videos we've made in The Villages, showcasing new developments in progress. I wasn’t planning to address this, but I believe our rights are being infringed upon, and I feel it’s important to share my perspective. I want to keep all of you who support channels that create drone content in the loop about these recent developments. Thanks for your continued support.

https://youtu.be/ZQFLWkkNIaI

A big reason for many newer residents moving to TV in the last 5 years or so is the ability to watch the drone videos presenting all TV has to offer to us. Been here 3 years and we watched many of these, convincing us to move here. TV is hurting themselves by messing with free advertising.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by CybrSage

It would go to State Court first. The developer would have to show there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a construction zone in order for it to violate State Law.
State Law is more restrictive than fed law in this instance and it spells out that if the person can be seen from the ground, outside of private property, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. If they cannot be, but can be seen from the air, there IS a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I posted the law, above.

YouTube has never promoted privacy

[Miboater]

I hope this will put to rest the talk that Don Wiley is a puppet of the developer.

[rsetterlund]

I wonder what the Villages is trying to hide.

[shut the front door]

Originally Posted by JRcorvette

The Developer is overreacting their authority and trying to intimidate Don. His videos are very informative and he has always been supportive of the Villages. Nothing negative. I am not sure how this all came about???

The Villages flat out does not like people making money when they don't get a cut. All of these youtube channels make money, as they should. If TV doesn't get their cut, they're going to do everything in their power (legal or otherwise) to make it stop.