Yacht Pics from Drones...

Look but don't touch?

Yeah, I suppose that's true. I seem to recall seeing advanced prototypes when I was a teen. Local hobbyists seeing if they could get hardwire programmed modules to do what today's drones simply do with phone and software technology. I remember wondering why those things never took off (pun intended) as a new hobby. Then 25+ years later suddenly they're all the rage and in the news.

I have to remind myself that I grew up in a slightly different segment of the nation, but even when the net first went public (and before that when you had dialup services like Prodigy) to me, now, it seems like the hobby would have thrived before this. But you're right, it's the go-pro tech in public hands that's probably fuelling the craze.

Very interesting.

There is what I would consider a perfectly appropriate drone picture ( if that's what it is) on the Spencer 74 sinking thread.

Maybe we should bifurcate this thread into one about drone photos and videos and one about privacy discussion?

How about if you put a telephoto lens on a tripod on the top floor of the Marriott Lauderdale (or whatever it's called now) ? Or Google earth? How'bout the Guvernment space birds? I'm not disagreeing with you that I would be miffed if someone started buzzing me like that and rcrapps suggestion certainly has merits, but the fact is, legally and in all practicality that you have no expectation of privacy when outdoors.

That said, there will be some (more accidents) an then the regulators will step in and muck it up. Used properly (and with concurrence) they produce some awesome footage.

http://rochester.nydatabases.com/map/domestic-drone-accidents

Actually all the situations you mention do have limits in some jurisdictions. As to accidents and incidents, they will increase rapidly. Actually, the regulation of drones and establishing some rules is very important to the serious and professional user. Every time some clown interferes with airplane travel or crashes and injures someone or distributes photos they shouldn't have, it hurts all drone users.

but the fact is, legally and in all practicality that you have no expectation of privacy when

Walking along a public way, I may agree with that premise. But, you have at least a civil cause of action under a theory of invasion of privacy if you are sitting on your porch in many jurisdictions. If commercial use is involved, you almost always have a cause of action. The court records abound with such cases. Why not on the back of your boat?? The problem is discovery - knowing some one is doing it. But the legal redress is there already.

Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, � 652

Copyright (c) 1977, The American Law Institute



� 652B Intrusion Upon Seclusion One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Comments:
a. The form of invasion of privacy covered by this Section does not depend upon any publicity given to the person whose interest is invaded or to his affairs. It consists solely of an intentional interference with his interest in solitude or seclusion, either as to his person or as to his private affairs or concerns, of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable man.
b. The invasion may be by physical intrusion into a place in which the plaintiff has secluded himself, as when the defendant forces his way into the plaintiff's room in a hotel or insists over the plaintiff's objection in entering his home. It may also be by the use of the defendant's senses, with or without mechanical aids, to oversee or overhear the plaintiff's private affairs, as by looking into his upstairs windows with binoculars or tapping his telephone wires. It may be by some other form of investigation or examination into his private concerns, as by opening his private and personal mail, searching his safe or his wallet, examining his private bank account, or compelling him by a forged court order to permit an inspection of his personal documents. The intrusion itself makes the defendant subject to liability, even though there is no publication or other use of any kind of the photograph or information outlined.

Some heartbreaking footage of a yacht on fire;

A tort is a civil action ... it is not a criminal action. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. All it takes is a lawyer looking for a boat payment and a highly creative sense of what constitutes "damages."

Flying a multirotor near a yacht operating on public waters is not a crime. no matter how much someone might despise the act.

Indeed, we never called it crime?? I believe we have been talking about civil (damages) and criminal actions (fines), as well as regulatory violations (penalties) as possible sanctions for invading my " porch on the water. with your binos in the sky" I believe we will start seeing more cases along that theme. The legal theory already exists on land in the US. for those states that have adopted the Restatement of Law, and others who adopted it in other forms. The question I've been raising is "will it be applied to the cockpit/deck of my boat similarly"

My guess is that it won't be applied to the cockpit/deck of your boat as that wouldn't by definition be considered "secluded."

But you're still on public waters on a luxury item (a business asset at best). You're not navy, but just some Joe like the rest of us enjoying nature. Some guy's got the right to look and stare as long as he's not stalking, threatening or "menacing".

I happen to think it's in bad form, and it's not something I would do ... and haven't done, but there are all kinds of jerks in the world. But that doesn't give you rights against them to protect you from their rudeness.

You don't have the same rights outside your home as you do inside your home and on your private property.

Thank you for the reply

Quite some years ago I was at a secluded beach with my wife and young sons. There were a few other families with young girls and boys all in swimming gear enjoying the water. A bunch of tourists arrived in one group, they were all men, all had cameras. Within seconds they were taking multitudes of photos of the kids. Shortly after this I grabbed one of the cameras and told the guy to move along.
Apparently he didn't understand English, but he understood precisely what I was saying and they left my family alone.
The drone issue has only magnified a problem that has been growing for a long time. Our image should belong to us, and not be public property. Nobody has the right to steal your image.

Well, it's bad form, but not strictly illegal unless they start selling your image.

Years back I was on a bikini shoot, and led a procession of 300+ models and their photographers to Golden Gate park, where, ah, "things happened". The tourists, males, snapped pics of the models as their wives looked on (none of them spoke English), and I had to physically pull them back, they were that intrusive and rude.

Then the cops came. "I want some clothes on these girls now!" At which point our producer, a female threw up a smoke screen about how we had permits (we didn't), and how there must have been a mistake (there wasn't). Said cop was an SFPD sergeant who was training two other officers from a city across the bay (Oakland? Berkeley? I can't remember).

In the end all three officers wound up getting the pictures taken with the girls.

Imagine.

A very interesting video gig (I was din my 20s).

Now, did the girls have rights? Probably. Did the producer and swimwear company have rights? Eh ... not as such. Did the jerk non-English speaking photographers have rights? A few.

We all had rights, but not for breaking the law. In the end no harm was done, and a fun time was had by all ... or so I recall.

Had there been drones ... whoa nelly!

No posts anywhere on this forum for ten and a half hours? Is my goddamn net activity still being run through UC Santa Cruz?