[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Only in the movies. Those who would steal from a construction site don't need drones to know what types of material are on the site or the access points. These things sit in wide open, cleared fields visible from the roadway.

Of course! My way would make a much better action flick. Thieves hanging underneath dump trucks. Guys in wings units shooting down rocket drones with nail guns. Transformer construction bots absconding with millions of dollars of rebar to produce next-gen Transformer builder's. "Screwball to Wingbolt. Flag Twisttye tog launch the bulldozer drones".
I can hardly wait for the sequel.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

"Flying a drone", "video recording" and "posting videos on social media", are three separate and distinct activities.

The FAA is potentially interested in only one of those 3 activities.

State and federal laws, apply to the other 2.

The theme of the drone supporters seems to be, "it's legal per the FAA".

That's a red herring. Yes, flying the drone may be legal, what the drones and operators are doing, might not be.

I'm in the witness protection program. No pictures please. Out me and enjoy Guantanamo.

[LianneMigiano]

Someone with media contacts needs to get state/national exposure involved. I'm sure that drone flights and privacy interests are interesting to more than just our community! Some of these replies regarding airspace should be shared throughout the country!

[Rocksnap]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

I'm in the witness protection program. No pictures please. Out me and enjoy Guantanamo.

Address please? So drone operators can ‘avoid’ capturing you on video.

[ltcdfancher]

Originally Posted by countrycomfort1

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

I’d disagree with this statement. I see uncountable numbers of posted signs that prohibit drone flights at a large number of USAF installations.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by ltcdfancher

I’d disagree with this statement. I see uncountable numbers of posted signs that prohibit drone flights at a large number of USAF installations.

Try to fly one over the Super Bowl or the World Series ... or a Taylor Swift concert. See how local law enforcement & the FAA react.

Go fly one of Disney World or the Grand Canyon or any National Park.

Apparently large groups of people (or area) are entitled to privacy, but the Developer of TV isn't.

Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina & Washington, all impose restrictions from drones from taking video of private property, without permission of the land owner.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Try to fly one over the Super Bowl or the World Series ... or a Taylor Swift concert. See how local law enforcement & the FAA react.

Go fly one of Disney World or the Grand Canyon or any National Park.

Apparently large groups of people (or area) are entitled to privacy, but the Developer of TV isn't.

Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina & Washington, all impose restrictions from drones from taking video of private property, without permission of the land owner.

None of those restrictions have to do with privacy.

The laws are more specific than "don't take pictures of private property." It remains to be seen whether the drone operators around TV are violating the specific restrictions of the current laws.

[ithos]

I cheated and used Chat GPT.

In March 2025, The Villages' legal representatives issued cease-and-desist letters to drone operators, including Sumter County Commissioner Don Wiley, citing Florida Statutes Section 934.50. This statute prohibits the use of drones to record images of privately owned property without the owner's written consent if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Violations can lead to civil actions and financial penalties. ​
However, this situation has sparked a legal debate over the balance between state privacy laws and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) authority over navigable airspace. The FAA maintains exclusive control over U.S. airspace, which complicates the enforcement of state-level drone restrictions. ​

Given these complexities, it's advisable for drone operators in Sumter County to:​
Stay Informed: Regularly review both federal and Florida state drone regulations.​
Respect Privacy: Avoid flying over private property without consent, especially in areas like The Villages where privacy concerns have been legally asserted.​

Consult Authorities: Engage with local authorities or legal counsel to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and to stay updated on any new regulations or legal interpretations.​
By taking these steps, drone pilots can navigate the evolving legal landscape and operate responsibly within Sumter County.​

Drone Ban in The Villages Sparks Legal Battle Over Airspace, Privacy, and Press Freedom |
The Villages Issues Cease And Desist To Drone Pilots: Complex Legal Battle Takes Flight

and of course more can be found on the banned site.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

"Flying a drone", "video recording" and "posting videos on social media", are three separate and distinct activities.

The FAA is potentially interested in only one of those 3 activities.

State and federal laws, apply to the other 2.

The theme of the drone supporters seems to be, "it's legal per the FAA".

That's a red herring. Yes, flying the drone may be legal, what the drones and operators are doing, might not be.

Best summary I've seen yet. Legal beagles far more knowledgeable than the posters here will end up hashing this out.

Bottom line though...it seems to me that the developer doesn't have to win. All he (she?) has to do is not lose, and in the meantime draw things out as long as possible. The developer no doubt has salaried attorneys who do work as it comes up, but the drone guys have to hire theirs. So it all comes down to the cost of this particular "justice" and whose money runs out first.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Best summary I've seen yet. Legal beagles far more knowledgeable than the posters here will end up hashing this out.

Bottom line though...the developer doesn't have to win. All he (she?) has to do is not lose, and in the meantime draw things out as long as possible. The developer no doubt has salaried attorneys who do work as it comes up, but the drone guys have to hire theirs. So it all comes down to the cost of this particular "justice" and whose money runs out first.

You nailed it. Might be a good use of a go fund me campaign. Strange that the developer is taking on Don Wiley.

[Catfishjeff]

Originally Posted by CybrSage

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

I'm a drone pilot and nowhere have I seen a 50' rule. What's your source?

[phylt]

Originally Posted by Goldwingnut

I don't have the time to spend composing responses that are easier said than written. I'm holding my tongue as I continue to work through these issues. I'll have something to say on my 3 o'clock Sunday broadcast. Until thing I need to spend my time getting #154 ready for release.

Don, we so appreciate your hard work and effort that you show through your so-informative videos of TV. We have always enjoyed them and look forward to the next, and next.

We're always supportive of the 'little guy' and the 'underdog'. The group of videographers who conduct their private businesses honorably and provide a service to the community certainly are a positive to The Villages. Both the residents, and those considering moving to TV.

Appears that the ONLY reason the Developer team is forcing these actions is to CONTROL all Media within their geography. Uncertain which, if any, laws support their argument. That certainly will be exposed soon. IMO, THEY are forcing your group to hire $$$ legal teams. THEY have virtually unlimited resources, so it's David vs. Goliath. So be it. But, it appears that THEY may have taken a position which will be negative to the public. I personally hope so and they will eventually stand down.

What if the Developer decided to take action against outside Real Estate firms? Issuing a threat that pre-owned homes within The Villages can ONLY be represented and sold by TV Agents??? Control.

We will be watching this issue closely, and if a Go Fund Me is opened, we will support as well.

--- a concerned Villager

[Buckeye Bill]

After reading 6 pages of comments the only one that makes sense is the post that TV is upset that they aren’t getting their cut of any and all moneys made by the drone operators. I know some have sponsors to defray the cost of producing the videos can TV be so petty to want a cut which more than likely less than the cost of having a Lawyer firm on retainer. Get real folks these operators are doing this for a hobby and if they can defray their costs let them.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Catfishjeff

I'm a drone pilot and nowhere have I seen a 50' rule. What's your source?

There is no arbitrary 50' rule.

There is a Supreme Court Decision from 1946 that is the controlling law at this point.

United States v. Causby - Wikipedia

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

"Flying a drone", "video recording" and "posting videos on social media", are three separate and distinct activities.

The FAA is potentially interested in only one of those 3 activities.

State and federal laws, apply to the other 2.

The theme of the drone supporters seems to be, "it's legal per the FAA".

That's a red herring. Yes, flying the drone may be legal, what the drones and operators are doing, might not be.

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Best summary I've seen yet. Legal beagles far more knowledgeable than the posters here will end up hashing this out.

Bottom line though...it seems to me that the developer doesn't have to win. All he (she?) has to do is not lose, and in the meantime draw things out as long as possible. The developer no doubt has salaried attorneys who do work as it comes up, but the drone guys have to hire theirs. So it all comes down to the cost of this particular "justice" and whose money runs out first.

& you are exactly right. The Developer doesn't have to "win", he only has to "not lose" or win by default, when the opposition gives up or goes broke.

I'm shocked by the general tone of this discussion. In a community that consists primarily of an older, conservative population, I would think that constituency would be more concerned with protecting privacy rights.

I suspect the tone would be entirely different, if the discussion involved their personal space and/or real estate and not the private space/property of the "big bad Developer".

Ethics are often situational.