|
Post by subzero350 on Aug 1, 2015 0:37:02 GMT -5
In photography, a photo can be taken of people when the photographer is on public property even if the subject is on private property. If privacy is attempted, but the photographer intrudes, it's illegal. So if curtains are pulled shut, shirt over head... Do we know if there was a privacy fence erected around the area where the daughter was laying? If there was, and no one could see her from ground level outside of the fence, then how would this impact the "rule" that says "a photo can be taken of people when the photographer is on public property even if the subject is on private property" when "privacy is attempted (by the fence), but the photographer intrudes (by flying over it)"
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Aug 1, 2015 3:08:05 GMT -5
It's a good question and I don't know the answer to it. I didn't like taking photos of people unless I got approval. The shooter will still get hammered just to make an example of him.
My lawyer sent me something today about drones, but I haven't read it yet. I'm sure much will evolve from this incident on both sides of the issue.
To me there isn't much difference in peaking under the door of a stall in a public restroom.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Aug 1, 2015 3:14:59 GMT -5
Here's there message to me:
REGULATING DRONES
Ever since Orville and Wilbur Wright completed their first pass above the beach at Kitty Hawk in 1903, flight innovation has constantly advanced forward and human-engineered flight has come a long way. Today, with the use of drones, humans can fly without placing a man or woman in the air. The U.S. military has deployed drones to conduct surveillance, identify potential targets, and carry out missile strikes. More recently, drones have entered into the private market, making them available to the American public including businesses and individual flight enthusiasts.
There is little doubt that the use of drones,or unmanned aircraft systems, will increase exponentially in the near future. Furthermore, the introduction of drones to the private market has not been without complications. Some operators are highly skilled—possibly having taken courses in aviation—or possibly being pilots themselves. However, the majority of drone owners are new to the market, and drones are not simple to fly. Crashes are common, especially at first, as users adjust to the controls. Furthermore, since drones allow the user to remain stationary while navigating the device; collisions due to failures in depth perception are frequent. This increase of drone activity in the United States will also lead to the potential for various types of civil liability for personal injuries and property damage/property rights claims.
There are several avenues of civil liability, related to the use of drones, from which a claim could arise. The three common areas will be:
(1) Invasion of Privacy
Many drones come equipped with mounted cameras, which can lead to serious privacy concerns. The right of privacy is well established in Indiana law and an invasion of privacy creates a cause of action in tort. In Indiana, the tort of “invasion of privacy” has taken four forms:
False light in a public eye Public disclosure of private facts Intrusion upon seclusion Appropriation of likeness.
(2) Personal Injury
The possibilities of drone uses are infinite, and as such, drones are destined to cause personal injuries to people. While the idea of grabbing a remote control and flying a drone around your neighborhood seems simple, amateur drone users can often commit mistakes. They do not account for weather changes, wind gusts and interference from buildings, trees and birds. Other times, it is not the user’s mistake that causes a drone to fall. A drone failure could also be due to a drone defect, battery failure or a power shortage in the motor. Regardless of the cause, all these issues can cause a drone to seriously injure someone on the ground below it. These kind of drone injuries can lead to drone injury lawsuits.
(3) Property Rights and Property Damage
Drones also have the ability to impact property law. Nuisance law and trespass law will be two common areas from which claims related to drones will arise. Nuisance claims in Indiana can be either public or private. A public nuisance is one that which affects an entire neighborhood or community, while a private nuisance affects only a single person or a determinate number of people. Landowners also have property rights associated with airspace and claims for trespass can arise from a physical intrusion upon a potential plaintiff’s property.
Currently, there is very little case law that has dealt with claims involving drones. The FAA has also been slow to set new regulations for drones. As with any new technology, courts lag behind in developing laws that will help shape how drone civil liability issues will be handled. However, it is possible to envision the civil liability claims that can arise from the use of a drone. The three main areas of law related to drones and civil liability will be invasion of privacy, personal injury, and property rights and property damage.
Do you want more tips and recommendations?
|
|
|
Post by throbak on Aug 1, 2015 20:02:01 GMT -5
JON; i doubt it you know how I feel and unless Im mistaken I dont think you would fly one over my place but come knocking on my door instead
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on Aug 1, 2015 22:15:35 GMT -5
I wish that he'd win, but I think he will be hosed because of firing the gun within the city limits. The SIM card should have been confiscated so they can see what's on it. Better shot with bigger pellets might have resulted in the drone coming down on his land.... Just saying.... He should have used hevi-metal. Lol
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Aug 2, 2015 5:56:09 GMT -5
better keep them <edited>things out of MY air space. nuff said
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Aug 2, 2015 16:51:13 GMT -5
JON; i doubt it you know how I feel and unless Im mistaken I dont think you would fly one over my place but come knocking on my door instead On one could pay me enough to bother you. I'd be a good neighbor.
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Aug 4, 2015 13:45:12 GMT -5
On FB there was a city councilman who complained about the smoke from a neighborhood cookout blowiong out of yard was illegal. If true, then the air space belongs to the owner; therefore, the drone would be on public property. It will be interesting. Looks like you found out by one of your later posts that you do indeed "own" ("rent" actually-property taxes are your rent) the air space above your real property. If you don't think that you "rent" your property from the government, just stop paying property taxes and see if they don't evict you.
|
|
|
Post by bartiks on Aug 9, 2015 7:02:47 GMT -5
better keep them <edited>things out of MY air space. nuff said Absolutely
If you own your own property you have mineral rights unless they are not deeded over to the new buyer and the like. I'm just confused why the states, NAH, the federal government doesn't say that within so many feet off the ground is that property owners air space, and thus would be considered trespassing.
As for what he did wrong, the only thing he did wrong was firing the gun into the air. Now on the other hand if you are on your own property and there is absolutely ZERO chance of you hitting anyone else as is the case on the property I own. I would shoot it out of the air and then shoot it again on the ground.
Also why isn't there any discussion about a potential crime that the operators of the committed while they were flying their drone over the land and, this may never be known without the SIM card, taking pictures of the mans 16 year old daughter. Last time I checked she was still a minor.
OK got that out of my system, my apologies if something came across a little abrasive, but the slogan "Don't Tread on Me" comes to mind when you are dealing with these drones flying over personal property.
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Aug 9, 2015 7:26:09 GMT -5
better keep them <edited>things out of MY air space. nuff said Absolutely
If you own your own property you have mineral rights unless they are not deeded over to the new buyer and the like. I'm just confused why the states, NAH, the federal government doesn't say that within so many feet off the ground is that property owners air space, and thus would be considered trespassing.
As for what he did wrong, the only thing he did wrong was firing the gun into the air. Now on the other hand if you are on your own property and there is absolutely ZERO chance of you hitting anyone else as is the case on the property I own. I would shoot it out of the air and then shoot it again on the ground.
Also why isn't there any discussion about a potential crime that the operators of the committed while they were flying their drone over the land and, this may never be known without the SIM card, taking pictures of the mans 16 year old daughter. Last time I checked she was still a minor.
OK got that out of my system, my apologies if something came across a little abrasive, but the slogan "Don't Tread on Me" comes to mind when you are dealing with these drones flying over personal property. because they want to be able to survey you and your property via air
|
|
|
Post by kevin1 on Aug 9, 2015 9:58:57 GMT -5
Absolutely
If you own your own property you have mineral rights unless they are not deeded over to the new buyer and the like. I'm just confused why the states, NAH, the federal government doesn't say that within so many feet off the ground is that property owners air space, and thus would be considered trespassing.
As for what he did wrong, the only thing he did wrong was firing the gun into the air. Now on the other hand if you are on your own property and there is absolutely ZERO chance of you hitting anyone else as is the case on the property I own. I would shoot it out of the air and then shoot it again on the ground.
Also why isn't there any discussion about a potential crime that the operators of the committed while they were flying their drone over the land and, this may never be known without the SIM card, taking pictures of the mans 16 year old daughter. Last time I checked she was still a minor.
OK got that out of my system, my apologies if something came across a little abrasive, but the slogan "Don't Tread on Me" comes to mind when you are dealing with these drones flying over personal property. because they want to be able to survey you and your property via air When you buy a property you are not automatically granted the mineral rights, only surface rights.
|
|
|
Post by bartiks on Aug 9, 2015 13:46:28 GMT -5
See, I totally got to worked up. Now that I've had time to read my post I put up earlier I can see why there are some comments about minerals rights and the like. Also kind of hard to follow one sentence in there. Thanks for the feedback Kevin and nfalls.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Aug 9, 2015 14:14:27 GMT -5
See, I totally got to worked up. Now that I've had time to read my post I put up earlier I can see why there are some comments about minerals rights and the like. Also kind of hard to follow one sentence in there. Thanks for the feedback Kevin and nfalls. Maybe we should be entitled to a determined amount of airspace privacy, but if the smoke from one's grill blows into a neighbor's airspace and they are offended by it, one might get sued. One's babyback ribs may offend one's neighbor. Some people just don't appreciate the finer things.
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Aug 10, 2015 8:06:17 GMT -5
When you buy a property you are not automatically granted the mineral rights, only surface rights. Actually you do automatically retain your mineral rights under your property unless someone has retained those rights specifically at some point in the chain of ownership.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Aug 10, 2015 13:13:21 GMT -5
When you buy a property you are not automatically granted the mineral rights, only surface rights. Actually you do automatically retain your mineral rights under your property unless someone has retained those rights specifically at some point in the chain of ownership. It may be a state issue for private land. I think in Alaska the mineral rights do not come with the land.
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Aug 10, 2015 14:35:51 GMT -5
See, I totally got to worked up. Now that I've had time to read my post I put up earlier I can see why there are some comments about minerals rights and the like. Also kind of hard to follow one sentence in there. Thanks for the feedback Kevin and nfalls. Maybe we should be entitled to a determined amount of airspace privacy, but if the smoke from one's grill blows into a neighbor's airspace and they are offended by it, one might get sued. One's babyback ribs may offend one's neighbor. Some people just don't appreciate the finer things. As to the baby back ribs... If my neighbor was cooking baby back ribs on a grill I may get a little angry myself I mean how dare they not offer me some
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Aug 10, 2015 17:10:21 GMT -5
To me, this is simple.
Three 20 some year old men were repeatedly flying a drone with a camera over the man's 16yo sunbathing daughter.
If it were me.... Drone comes down. Men get invited inside the privacy fence to retrieve said drone. Ambulance comes to get men while I drive myself to the police station.
|
|
|
Post by bartiks on Aug 15, 2015 22:07:28 GMT -5
To me, this is simple. Three 20 some year old men were repeatedly flying a drone with a camera over the man's 16yo sunbathing daughter. If it were me.... Drone comes down. Men get invited inside the privacy fence to retrieve said drone. Ambulance comes to get men while I drive myself to the police station. Couldn't of said it better.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Oct 26, 2015 21:16:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Oct 27, 2015 10:40:42 GMT -5
Good for him! Unfortunately though this one is probably not over yet.
|
|