Local photog selling drone photos of restricted area!

[NancyMoranG]

He is standing in the parking lot or on the service road while filming. Yes he is within the 500' and in the area of critical infrastructure.

Truthfully, he has great video on his website!

 

[vintagesnaps]

Not any camera can provide an aerial view. Well, unless you want to charter a plane and hang out of it taking selfies. <--- sarcasm intended, don't try it!

I don't know Nancy, why do people do a lot of things they do? <--- rhetorical question, who in heck knows!

What a maroon... why didn't he stand next to the sign and make it even more obvious!?

 

[480sparky]

Not any camera can provide an aerial view. Well, unless you want to charter a plane and hang out of it taking selfies. <--- sarcasm intended, don't try it!

I don't know Nancy, why do people do a lot of things they do? <--- rhetorical question, who in heck knows!

What a maroon... why didn't he stand next to the sign and make it even more obvious!?

Egads, cameras have been airborne since the day after they were invented. There's lots of ways to get a camera up in the air. Painter poles. Masts are made for such purpose. Balloons. Kites. Paragliders.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Then he coulda stood by the sign with balloons and kites with cameras attached and been Mr. Obvious.

If signs are posted, and they say don't do it, then don't do it! This is like teaching jr. high all over again... Writing during detention with two pencils at a time trying to get done faster when the rule is to write with only one pencil (because nobody was going to get out any earlier writing any faster including me) meant confiscating one pencil and at the end of detention sending it home along with its corresponding kid!

 

[SquarePeg]

Hi Nancy. Good to see you back on here. how long are you going to be on the Cape? I'm trying to get a few days free to head down that way before the weather turns. The hurricanes keep getting in my way.

 

[SquarePeg]

As to this issue, I would not go onto private property or ignore 'no photographs signs'. For me it's a hobby and not something I'm willing to go all Larry Flint for.

 

[NancyMoranG]

Hi Nancy. Good to see you back on here. how long are you going to be on the Cape? I'm trying to get a few days free to head down that way before the weather turns. The hurricanes keep getting in my way.

Thank you. It's been a long 2 months
We leave 10/10 Tuesday. Would love to meet you and any other locals!

We are pretty sure we will not come back next year. Hubby and I need new horizons and some soul searching together..

 

[Destin]

Even if he illegally obtained the photos, once taken they remain his property and he is free to sell them.

If you get caught trespassing and taking photos you can be kicked out and charged with trespassing. But they CAN NOT make you delete the photos. You own them and can sell them if you please.

Not defending the drone operator, just adding another layer of discussion here.

 

[pixmedic]

Its no different than people that think its ok to ignore "no trespassing" signs to shoot where they want.

Sent from my LG-H872 using Tapatalk

 

[NancyMoranG]

Like I said earlier, lots of interesting replies..

.. taken by a drone which is not allowed.

There are different degrees of "not allowed".

If it is closed air space, and the issue is civilian aircraft encroaching, then whoever decided that it was closed airspace will/should respond.

If there was some sensitive national security reason that NO PHOTOS were allowed, then whoever is in charge of security will/should respond.

If it's a case of "no trespassing" due to dangerous conditions, then someone will have to decide if a drone is the same as trespassing.

If it's a case of some bureaucrat getting a big head, then it is up to that official to respond. If that's the case, someone will have to go to court to get a judgement on whether the order will stand. This is where things can get really fuzzy.

I would guess there are those among us who respect the intent of the signs they read regarding the use of drones in certain areas, and just let it go. In this case, someone has disregarded the posted warning/request/law/rule and not only flew a drone, but is selling online images in an effort to profit from it.

If you think that's all fine, so be it. I'm one of those boring people who would honor the posted sign and go elsewhere to try to make a buck.

It's so typical to read these chest-beating replies around here, as if the institution that posted the signs is somehow at fault, rather than the jerk who subverted the request and is attempting to profit from it.

Even if he illegally obtained the photos, once taken they remain his property and he is free to sell them.

If you get caught trespassing and taking photos you can be kicked out and charged with trespassing. But they CAN NOT make you delete the photos. You own them and can sell them if you please.

Not defending the drone operator, just adding another layer of discussion here.

So, you have 'evidence' the person took illegal photos, and nothing can be done?

I posed the topic for discussion, am not looking for myself to do anything, and am not looking to incite any action against the guy...just for commentary.
Am newly back to the Forum after the death of our son...just setting some thoughts out there for discussion for a distraction....
Thank you..am off to cry some more....

 

[b_twill]

There are some people who think laws only apply to others.

 

[terri]

There are some people who think laws only apply to others.

Yes, I'm thinking that was the main point up for discussion. But it quickly got lost. I've read so many threads here where there seems to be consensus that trespassing or blatant disregard of posted signs is wrong; not sure why it was challenged in this instance.

I'm sorry the discussion didn't go as you thought it might, Nancy.

For now, I think enough voices have weighed in on this thread for me to close it. I'll be happy to re-open if you'd like; just shoot me a PM.