So, there was a RC "drone" hovering above my house yesterday...I was kinda pissed.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Looks like I was right. The drone was likely trespassing. It was within the airspace that you clearly own above your property.
No, you did not read the article fully if that's what you got out of it. 200ft would be out of the airspace you own. Also in the case of the article he was also trespassing for taking off from the land. This article was also written before the FAA re-wrote it's rules.
In the article it said that under 500ft was normally considered YOUR airspace, and the drone was well within that space.
Re-read it. It did not say that. It said it considered changing to that. It said it was somewhere between 80-500ft depending on the height of the buildings.
Yes, but 500ft was the more commonly accepted.
Regardless, it is within the airspace that mostly is considered yours. Sure, any judge might hate you and rule something ridiculous, but the law seems pretty clear that the use of drones in ways that are generally a nuisance is likely trespassing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Here is another article listing both trespass and nuisance laws and being potentially applicable when within your airspace.
http://www.agweb.com/article/legal_ease_drones_and_the_law_NAA_John_Dillard-john-dillard/
He also says that the law isn't clear about it being trespassing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Looks like I was right. The drone was likely trespassing. It was within the airspace that you clearly own above your property.
No, you did not read the article fully if that's what you got out of it. 200ft would be out of the airspace you own. Also in the case of the article he was also trespassing for taking off from the land. This article was also written before the FAA re-wrote it's rules.
In the article it said that under 500ft was normally considered YOUR airspace, and the drone was well within that space.
Re-read it. It did not say that. It said it considered changing to that. It said it was somewhere between 80-500ft depending on the height of the buildings.
Yes, but 500ft was the more commonly accepted.
Regardless, it is within the airspace that mostly is considered yours. Sure, any judge might hate you and rule something ridiculous, but the law seems pretty clear that the use of drones in ways that are generally a nuisance is likely trespassing.
No, it wasn't. You are seeing things the way you want to not, what they ACTUALLY say.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
He also says that the law isn't clear about it being trespassing.
He did, it is not completely clear. But the consensus seems to be that it is much more likely to be trespassing that to not be. But you said it wasn't and that it was completely legal. What makes it not trespassing and completely legal when the law leans the other way, apparently?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
No, it wasn't. You are seeing things the way you want to not, what they ACTUALLY say.
I provided the quote.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
No, it wasn't. You are seeing things the way you want to not, what they ACTUALLY say.
I provided the quote.
Cool Story.
-
One of the lawyers: There are two common law legal protections that are available to prevent harassment from drones: trespass and nuisance. The law is not abundantly clear on where a landowner’s exclusive control of airspace ends and the public airspace begins. Modern interpretations of property law hold that property owners’ airspace rights extend to as much of the space above the ground that is occupied or used in connection with the land.
Nuisance claims can also be filed against drone operators if their activity leads to a "substantial and unreasonable interference" with the use of your property. Drones can be noisy, frighten livestock and annoy landowners, thereby creating a nuisance and reducing property value.
If it is interfering with your family, that would seem to apply. If you have to listen to it, watch it, worry about it crashing, etc. you are being nuisanced by it.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
No, it wasn't. You are seeing things the way you want to not, what they ACTUALLY say.
I provided the quote.
Cool Story.
I'm providing references and quotes from attorneys. You are free to disagree, but you are just stating over and over that I am wrong and that they are wrong. Or claiming that the quotes aren't quotes. I'm not sure why you feel that this information is wrong or why the law would not likely support homeowners. Do you have legal references that provide clarity on why you feel that you don't have any airspace and drones have full legal rights that homeowners do not?
-
No idea as to the expertise of these guys, but they have the same trespass information discussed when looking at liabilities for Amazon delivery:
http://wfpl.org/want-amazon-prime-air-package-kentucky-itll-take-while/
Unless the drones could drop straight down from federal airspace to your house, they will likely have to cross someone else’s property. Without a revision to regulations, that could qualify as trespassing or nuisance.
Notice that the changes in the law are needed to make it not trespass. The current law, they suggest, likely means that it is.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
One of the lawyers: There are two common law legal protections that are available to prevent harassment from drones: trespass and nuisance. The law is not abundantly clear on where a landowner’s exclusive control of airspace ends and the public airspace begins. Modern interpretations of property law hold that property owners’ airspace rights extend to as much of the space above the ground that is occupied or used in connection with the land.
Nuisance claims can also be filed against drone operators if their activity leads to a "substantial and unreasonable interference" with the use of your property. Drones can be noisy, frighten livestock and annoy landowners, thereby creating a nuisance and reducing property value.
If it is interfering with your family, that would seem to apply. If you have to listen to it, watch it, worry about it crashing, etc. you are being nuisanced by it.
Still that would mean it's nusiance or invasion of privacy, pepeing tom etc. Not trespassing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
No, it wasn't. You are seeing things the way you want to not, what they ACTUALLY say.
I provided the quote.
Cool Story.
I'm providing references and quotes from attorneys.
Yes, and the links you provide did NOT agree that it was trespassing. You are skewing them.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Still that would mean it's nusiance or invasion of privacy, pepeing tom etc. Not trespassing.
Each of the attorneys and the television station (maybe an attorney, who knows) mentions trespass specifically and nuisance as an additional course of potential legal action.
You keep saying definitively that it is not trespassing, but the attorneys seem to feel that it likely is. What's the basis for your belief that it definitely is not?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Yes, and the links you provide did NOT agree that it was trespassing. You are skewing them.
In what way? Each one that I provided stated that it was possible or likely. If they state otherwise, provide the quote. I keep finding agreement in article after article. None are totally for sure, all agree that it seems more likely than not. It is certainly a risk. And trespass is just the strongest case, nuisance would likely either cover when trespass does not, or doubly when it does.
-
Also from the same article at the station: But even if the drones aren’t directly trespassing, bothered neighbors who say aerial package delivery interferes with the enjoyment of their property could bring a nuisance case.
-
This article from IEEE states that the airspace limit is solid at 400ft. And that drones under it are trespassing. But says that the trespassing isn't strictly illegal yet. But California is considering making it much more clear. It doesn't suggest that it is legal today, only that clarity might be added tomorrow. But it makes it pretty clear that they feel that the sub 400ft airspace is owned by the property owner and above that requires FAA clearance.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/robotics/aerial-robots/californias-no-drone-zones
It is already for drones in California to record people. This bill is purely to stop them 100% in your airspace without question.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
This article from IEEE states that the airspace limit is solid at 400ft. And that drones under it are trespassing
It does not say that. It say they are considering a bill to limit drone usage below 400ft in California only.
-
So if there is a drone over my property with a camera, it may be recording events in my back yard. Now, let's assume I have a privacy fence (tall wodden fence that generally obscures my back yard from view of people at ground level).
That drone may or may not be recording what is happening in my back yard, when I obviously want my privacy. If I see it, my response (if I do not live inside the city limits) is grab my gun and bang,bang,bang,bang,bang,click, click ... (I'm a bad shot)... Especially if I feel like it is just hovering over my property.
I'm not a mean guy. If it's flying around, then I'd likely not be bothered by it. But if it hovers over my property and I feel like it is spying on me or my family, all bets are off.
-
I don't have a gun so I'd probably try and hit it with my frisbee.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This article from IEEE states that the airspace limit is solid at 400ft. And that drones under it are trespassing
It does not say that. It say they are considering a bill to limit drone usage below 400ft in California only.
Here is the part where it declares the line at 400ft:
above 400 feet, the airspace is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA is still working out its drone rules, but at this point the regulations require hobbyists to keep their drones below 400 feet.
So that part is very black and white (according to the article, which seems unlikely to be true given everything the lawyers have said about it being around that number but undetermined officially.) But the article itself seems sure of it.
You are correct, the bit about it being trespassing was in a title that is not on the article itself. It must be part of a link from elsewhere that someone added when linking to the article. The title that I saw referred to the location of the drones as trespass. But it wasn't the IEEE's title.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This article from IEEE states that the airspace limit is solid at 400ft. And that drones under it are trespassing
It does not say that. It say they are considering a bill to limit drone usage below 400ft in California only.
Here is the part where it declares the line at 400ft:
above 400 feet, the airspace is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA is still working out its drone rules, but at this point the regulations require hobbyists to keep their drones below 400 feet.
That doesn't mean what you think it does. The FAA allows Drone use below 400ft, However anything more than that is US Government property and only the FAA can make rules on that, not local government.
