Local photog selling drone photos of restricted area!

[NancyMoranG]

Am at Cape Cod Canal which is a government run area. A local photographer is selling photos on website of the Canal taken by a drone which is not allowed.
I told the Army Corps of Engineers but they don't want to get trashed on social media, so as far as I know, they haven't approached him.
Thoughts?

 

[480sparky]

........... which is not allowed..............

By who? What law?

 

[NancyMoranG]

Any property that is run by a government agency. All National Parks, Pentagon, White House, etc. and we have signs ups up that it is not allowed.

 

[tirediron]

I don't think your "any property..." Statement is totally accurate however that aside. The ACE is not a law-enforcement body so there's probably exactly nothing they can do. Just because there's a sign posted doesn't mean that there's legislation to support it and if there is legislation, it's going to depend on why it's not allowed: safety, security, etc.

 

[480sparky]

Yep. Popping a sign in the ground doesn't make it a law. Laws have to be adopted.

If doing so makes it legal, I'd have a sign in my yard saying "Toll Road: $50. Pay at Front Door."

 

[snowbear]

I think there are enough issues in the Federal Government that this is relatively insignificant.

edit: National Park Service Policy Memorandum 14-05. I don't know if ACE has a similar policy.

 

[Tomasko]

I'm not sure if I follow.. Why exactly are you bothered by this?

but they don't want to get trashed on social media

If THIS is the reason why no one else cares, maybe it's not exactly illegal?

 

[Designer]

.. 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.

 

[terri]

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.

 

[zombiesniper]

Lets look at the posted signage for this.

It can be found here for those that wish to read it.

The only concrete enforceable section on the sign really is

"No person shall operate a UAS:
Within 500 feet of operational areas. Operational areas are defined as land on which project operational structures are located."

The sign also only states that a UAS infraction will be reported.

A local photographer is selling photos on website of the Canal taken by a drone which is not allowed.

That's not what the sign says. It says you can't fly within 500 feet. If the operator is flying within 500 feet of one of the structures then I agree that person is in the wrong. If however they are filming from outside of 500 feet. They are doing nothing wrong according to this sign.

 

[NancyMoranG]

I think all of you have some great comments but I am with Terri on this one for a couple of reasons..
They Do have a sign up in an area that is used for recreational purposes that is ALLOWED by the ACOE. They don't HAVE to let you use the service road for biking, roller blading, walking etc, but they do. They have signs posted like, 'stay to the right, no littering, 10 mph (fast bikers'), look before crossing to the other side etc..'
The canal service road is about 16' wide and yellow line down the middle but everyone calls it the 'bike path' and is used to maintain the canal.

They tell us to let them know if people are using drones. They do not want them and have posted signs. There would be a lot of them if it were allowed because of its beauty.
So why go trough all of that and then NOT enforce it?
Nope, doesn't 'bother' me, I have MUCH bigger issues at this time. just wondered your thoughts.
What's stopping the next guy ?

 

[benhasajeep]

I think all of you have some great comments but I am with Terri on this one for a couple of reasons..
They Do have a sign up in an area that is used for recreational purposes that is ALLOWED by the ACOE. They don't HAVE to let you use the service road for biking, roller blading, walking etc, but they do. They have signs posted like, 'stay to the right, no littering, 10 mph (fast bikers'), look before crossing to the other side etc..'
The canal service road is about 16' wide and yellow line down the middle but everyone calls it the 'bike path' and is used to maintain the canal.

They tell us to let them know if people are using drones. They do not want them and have posted signs. There would be a lot of them if it were allowed because of its beauty.
So why go trough all of that and then NOT enforce it?
Nope, doesn't 'bother' me, I have MUCH bigger issues at this time. just wondered your thoughts.
What's stopping the next guy ?

The question is. Was the drone inside the restricted zone to take the pictures? If he was not inside the restricted zone, the photographer did nothing wrong! Now, also the drone operator needs to have a commercial drone permit. Or the FAA could come knocking if they felt the need to pursue it.

 

[vintagesnaps]

There is a law; it would be illegal depending on where the UAS was flown.
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Portals/74/docs/Recreation/CCC/Brochures/No_Drone_Regulation_20
Read where it says Be Advised - under No Drone Zone it says 'Why are there no designated areas at the Cape Cod Canal to fly UAS's?' ; under Security it says 'Drones could be used criminally against visitors or critical infrastructure'.

Why help make it easier for anyone with an intent to damage/destroy roads, bridges or dams by giving them plenty of aerial photos of potential targets? Why fly a UAS where it's prohibited just to try to make a buck from some photos? There are plenty of other things to photograph and ways to make money.

It mentions violations will be reported by the Corps of Engineers but I didn't see where or to whom it's reported. You could try looking at the FAA website and see if there's a way online to report it. The person who took aerial photos put the photos 'out there' online and made it public that he/she apparently may have violated federal law by operating a UAS possibly over a prohibited area.

So I think it's OK for for any of us as responsible citizens to report something seen or heard that is suspected to be illegal and/or a potential security issue. As has been said on the news - 'If you see something, say something.'

 

[480sparky]

....... 'Drones could be used criminally against visitors or critical infrastructure'....

So can ANY camera.

 

[NancyMoranG]

Actually Designer hit it with the 'critical' area. The Canal makes all of Cape Cod an island. Hence, the 2 bridges are a huge possible target. And the canal has fuel tankers that go through all the time.
When the Boston bombing happened, we were here and learned the bridges are a very scary option for terrorists to use.

Mentioned some of your posts to hubby. He wondered how people could come onto property and not obey the rules posted for all?