Yacht Pics from Drones...

Yes, you are on line with my concerns.

On the other hand, Our local media is notorious for video just like this. Big asp boat surrounded by micro boats would be (if not the only) big news here in Jax (lack of factual reporting on any other real event) And it would still sell air time is a great example. Sadly the media seems exempt from anything else caught in their videos.

Absence of malice comes to mind.

Soon (as a comment before), there has to be some legal control and responsibility. As with any new gizmo or fad, it's impressive, a great tool in narrow applications, but not in my air space.

" If ever a license was issued, I hope it mandates common sense!"


Compliance with Gov't regs and laws..oh how that really works for privacy..

What are the regulations in regard to using your shotty or semi auto centrefire weapon to knock one of these down whilst sitting in the middle of a busy anchorage or a downtown marina?

I'm sure there are laws in the local citys books.
I should of greatly expanded my previous comment or typed slower to help answer, before asking, the second part of your question.
But' I'll try again;
When we are away from the dock or other boats, crowds or tall buildings with lots of windows, our romance is away from all those privacy invading people and cameras. To relax and escape is what our lil ship offers and it is greatly valued.

AND away from the humor deprived.

I agree with your proposed method of control and will be practising the same when at home as I live in the boonies the chances of being overflown by any is very remote , where I fish it is a free for all but would be surprised if someone were to fly one that far offshore. I was just curious as to the problems you might encounter some time after pulling the trigger whilst in the home of the NRA.

You'd have two problems if shooting one down. The first would be discharge of the firearm in a city limit where not allowed. The second would be destruction of property.

Just Google "shot down drone" for an interesting hour's read and some interesting photos as well as a good insight into actual events and other people's sentiments about the topic.

Carl

Its the sensible balance of individual rights. No one has an absolute right to do anything. In NY it is an invasion of privacy to use telescopes to look into peoples windows just for the heck of it. If you snap a picture of something you see interesting and publish (that's usually how the evidence comes to light) you could be in for a nasty and expensive time. I do not see a differences with a drone flying randomly over my boat just to check if there is a commercially salable photo op available. It is my position that, as a private citizen, that I have a reasonable expectation of privacy while I am relaxing aboard particularly with the stealth capability of a drone.

Jax and Duval county were consolidated many years ago. The county line and the city line are the same. The county involves many acres of wood lands, abandoned strip mines, swamp/marshes and remote areas. Sport shooting / hunting are allowed in these areas.
I would assume the laws are enforced with a grey line ( or tape measure) somewhere. Good sense and responsible practice would probably darken that line also.
We are not the home of the NRA but lets say, home of a large population of supporters including local magistrates and judges.

If's it over me and annoying, behind the gizmo is safe backdrop, it may be a target. I'm not to worried about any damage to the gizmo.
Either it will sink or as a good shooter/hunter, I always check, remove or bury my kills.

That said, I see Marmot pointing to some reading.

That was entertaining. Lots on the same story. Hunt for the chicken farmer (ex) story.

Read this: http://www.americanbar.org/publicat.../spring/a_reasonable_expectation_privacy.html

And this with regard to the idea of an expectation of privacy in what is really an "open field: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/expectation_of_privacy

It's not a constitutional issue. It's governed by other laws and unfortunately the laws are inadequate at this point to cover drones.

In most jurisdictions looking through open windows (no drapes or blinds closed) is legal if done from off the property and the naked eye. However, if one uses telescopes or zoom lenses or if one ventures onto the property to do so then it becomes an invasion of privacy. However, in some areas that isn't and it falls to the open window issue and one doesn't have a reasonable expectation if they fail to close the blinds or drapes. Much of this falls within various "peeping Tom" laws. Typically those laws haven't been rewritten but have been interpreted over the years by courts to cover new circumstances.

The drone issue is not entirely new. In California you've had many cases of Paparazzi finding high peaks near the property to view what was going on in the yard. You've long had cases of airplanes and helicopters being used and had various rulings. One of the key elements of most of those cases, however, has been the resell of photos and/or the use of the photos for commercial purposes.

For most of us, privacy came about through the use of privacy fences. As to open field, ownership and distance from others was the key. Years ago we had a home on some acreage. In the yard adjacent to the home, we had no expectation of privacy. However, deep in the property in the wooded area by the creek, with the nice grassy area for picnics and other activities we did.

Today our backyard faces the water so no expectation of privacy when in the yard. However, when in our pool we can't be seen from the water and we do have an expectation of privacy. Now, this was pre-drones. Should we still have an expectation? In our opinion, yes, we should have for that cone of space over our property. There should be a restricted area. It's not just a privacy issue but it's a safety issue as well. If someone takes photos from their boat, they haven't violated any laws. However, if they redistribute those, since we are not public figures, then they have done so. We have ownership rights to any photography of ourselves.

Privacy issues haven't just arisen on visible privacy but in all areas of communication. If I'm speaking loudly on my cell phone in the middle of a crowded restaurant, I have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If, however, I've moved to a private area with no one near and you're using electronic means to capture my conversation then in most states, but not all, you've violated my rights.

Recording of phone calls varies by state. In some if one party consents, it's legal. In Florida, if both parties haven't consented, then it's a felony. Florida also has very tough laws on distribution of videos and photos. You and your partner record a night of pleasure and in some states since both consented, it's ok to send to others. In Florida that is also a felony without the persons consent to it being sent.

So, I believe, although the laws are not in place to support it, that I should have a right of protection against electronic surveillance and anything not visible by human eye from off my property at ground level. I think if my neighbor sees what is going on in my bedroom from his second story view then that's understandable, but if he photographs it or video's it, he's violated my rights.

As to drones over my property I think I merit freedom from them. That brings us to boats. Photography from other boats and land is fine. However, I think I merit the same protection of the space over my boat, that cone of space. I also think that I merit the same protection inside my boat as inside my home.

Now, as a couple, if you see us naked on the deck of our boat through flying your drone overhead, then while I think that should be illegal, I'm not particularly bothered by it. Where the real issue comes into play is your distribution of the video or photo and the fact it ends up spread all across the internet. It's like sex tapes. If someone's sex tape is going to be sold then they should be the only ones doing it.

As to Carl's comments on technology. Sure it has it's place. Fly over mountains and get never before seen views. But all technology must be managed and controlled. We have technology allowing people to scan and pick up the information off your credit cards. Should that be praised as exemplifying the place of new technology? What about hacking into business and government computer systems? That's technology. Clearly shouldn't be praised and shouldn't be legal.

Almost all new technology has the potential for abuse. That's why the laws must keep pace with the technology.

I thought there would be more photos in this thread versus debate...

I think its a good debate especially as there are a couple of yacht owners who are participating. In my case as when at home I live somewhere where I can quite legally shoot animals I want to eat from my windows or doors if I can see them I am not worried about local bylaws.

Your readings were good to read. I am afraid the cases were more citizens vs government or citizen vs corporate. I remember some terms of use with Google that mentioned some history and data mining from internet and g-mail use. Not to worried about that. The internet does not work for free.

The citizen vs citizen angle brought up here (drones with cameras) may or may not be subject to the Open Field Doctrine. IMO, no.

The ABA discussion concerns expectations of privacy in a commercial setting where the individual willingly submits to service.

the Cornell article talks about the "open fields" or Hestor" doctrine generated from the 4th amendment of the U.S. constitution. The 4th amendment principally regulates government conduct, not conduct of a private citizen

Perhps, perhaps not:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/family-loses-legal-battle-photog-pics-article-1.2179583

http://flavorwire.com/410860/when-does-photography-becomes-an-invasion-of-privacy-perhaps-never