An entry level set up with a camera runs around $500 ready to fly.
A serious professional set up runs well into 4 figures.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Avatar construction aerial updates
- Thread starter photoflight
- Start date
A serious professional set up runs well into 4 figures.
Tom
Beta Return
I think he went to Disney Jail.
dstrawn9889
Well-Known Member
well his ears anyway, no grounds to confiscate equipment.
This is what the new law states...
• SB 766, prohibits the use of aerial drones to capture images that could infringe on the privacy of property owners or occupants. The law allows people to initiate a civil action against a person, state agency or political subdivision that violates the prohibitions. However, the prohibition doesn’t include agencies countering the risk of terrorist attacks, police who obtain search warrants that authorize the use of drones, property appraisers making tax assessments, and utilities maintaining their facilities.
There are no criminal penalties attached to the new law, but if you are videotaped by one, you can sue the drone operator if you can prove financial damages.
Regardless of the law, the drone would be over private property and the operator would most likely be on private property. If Disney so wishes, they can have the operator trespassed from property.
matt9112
Well-Known Member
rampent drone use....any solution to legality of shooting at them? is it extension of stand ground laws?
dstrawn9889
Well-Known Member
well blast one out of the sky, but be sure it is over your property... and while you are at it, tag that google street view car as well
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Thats insanely vague. Typical Florida legislative [edited] [edited] [Yikes].
matt9112
Well-Known Member
Stand your ground laws implicate defending life and property so I would assume you would have to prove that the drone was damaging property or ready to cause harm.
Granted my opinion is a verbal warning to the drone to leave or I will open fire is good enough. If the drone refuses than blast it. I know stand your ground is mostly off of your own property as your own property is "castle doctrine" and I think you have the right to draw on somebody after a verbal warning in most states. The socialist republic of Massachusetts not being one of them.
matt9112
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's the states job to create laundry lists. I'm sure a good case or two will find refinement to the law. However just regulating stuff because you can is a bad idea....than you end up with California and new york...a Web of black and white laws built around powers of the state and the removal of judgement.
Edit (see zero tolerance failures)
The subject of shooting down drones has come up quite a bit lately. Gizmodo did a fair article on the subject, but the Reader's Digest version is this...
1. Drones and all other RC aircraft are currently legally defined as "aircraft". The law makes no distinction between a DJI Phantom and a Boeing 777. That makes even shooting at a drone a federal crime.
2. You don't control that airspace over your property, the FAA does. If a drone is 1" above your grass it is, from a legal standpoint, not on your property.
3. Some states do have drone surveillance laws, but none to my knowledge legally allow the shooting down of an offender.
4. About the only legal argument for shooting down a drone is if you are being physically attacked by one.
matt9112
Well-Known Member
Makes sense but in that vein I think the FAA should give up airspace at very low altitudes like your 1 inch example. Also clear legal separation of recreational drones and real planes need to be made. Granted the FAA like most federal power houses needs to loose a lot of its power.
Wikkler
Well-Known Member
My opinion is that less than 1 foot above the grass should count as "yours."
matt9112
Well-Known Member
I think a resonabe expectation like power line height? What's that 20 feet? Or something.
Another thought how can the FAA have authority over drones but unlike real planes cannot track and or truly regulate them. Another example of how slow congress is and how broken goverment is.
Wikkler
Well-Known Member
With Congress, it's baby steps. Also, the minimum for power lines is 12 feet in residential property, I believe... Don't take my word.
So far, it does not seem like the FAA has flexed any of whatever muscle they have regarding the shooting down of drones. Most that have shot down drones get charged with things like discharging a fire arm in the city limits, destruction of public property, etc if they get charged at all.
Jahona
Well-Known Member
City and State governments can't regulate the use of drones as they don't have control of the airspace. The only governing body that can is the FAA. The ordinance that Florida put into place is about the limit that they can do. Granted this doesn't stop someone from shooting video or photos from inside of a helicopter or plane. At least in North Texas I can rent an R44 that is set up for ariel photography for about $500-$700 for an hour or two. My phantom 2 with gimbal and GoPro cost me $1400. There's also the fact that most of Disney World is under restricted airspace. I've attached two images that show the extent of the "Temporary no fly zone" that is over WDW. As you can see it doesn't cover much of Animal Kingdom. In theory it's not illegal to fly a drone over Animal Kingdom. If you launched from public property then there is nothing illegal that they could get you on. Now Disney could come back with this new ordinance and demand you take down the photos or video you took and then take you to court for damages.
Wikkler
Well-Known Member
DHS doesn't seem to be in the no-fly zone. Blizzard Beach isn't, either.