[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

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.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Maker

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]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

Originally Posted by CybrSage

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.

[Skip]

I see that Don and the others are posting drone videos on YouTube again. So what changed?

Skip