FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Tech

We Don't Need More Laws to Regulate Drone Photography

For all the legal questions surrounding the use of drones, the legality of their use for photography and surveillance has the most direct effect on American citizens.
Image via NASA

For all the legal questions surrounding the use of drones, the legality of their use for photography and surveillance has the most direct effect on American citizens. It's still a murky topic, as highlighted by a case currently making the rounds in Seattle.

According to the Capital Hill Seattle Blog, a Seattle woman recently experienced a guy flying a camera-equipped drone near her third-story windows; when her husband asked the man to stop, the pilot said he had a legal right to fly the drone wherever he wants. The kicker: The woman reportedly called the cops, but when the man left, they decided not to show.

Advertisement

It's unclear if the man was filming the couple's home or, creepier, filming through their windows—he reportedly said he was doing "research." As Rebecca Rosen writes at the Atlantic, what was being filmed is key to deciding whether or not the drone's flight was legal under current grounds.

Photography is legal in public and protected by the First Amendment, and as laws are currently structured, that should apply even if the camera is mounted on a quadcopter. But the First Amendment's information-gathering protections stop when actions infringe on someone else's privacy.

Rosen notes that flying a drone over someone's yard or house may or may not be legal—trespassing on private property is illegal, flying through their airspace is not. Flying hobby planes and toy drones up to 400 feet in the air isn't currently regulated by the FAA. With drones becoming more popular and more advanced, expect that area of airspace (and the definition of "hobbyist") to be an area of regulators' attention.

This moose caught on drone camera shows the awesome of camera-equipped drones.

But in terms of photography, the law is more clear: filming public spaces with a drone should be protected by the First Amendment; using a drone to film through your neighbor's windows is not.

This Seattle case isn't exactly momentous. While the drone pilot in question does appear to have been acting rather shadily, cops deciding not to show up after the guy already left isn't legal precedent. We've already got a fairly clear set of case law that marks boundaries between legal photography and illegal spying. Is it really necessary to add more legislation to rule on drone photography?

Some legislators think that's the case, and early attempts have proven why drone-specific photo laws are an area to tread lightly. In New Hampshire, state legislators went so far as to propose banning all aerial photography, which was a ham-fisted way to try to do what the privacy protections on the books already do. (Meanwhile, that type of thinking does not apply in the least to the government itself.)

Drone legislation is only going to become a hotter issue in coming years, and eventually a situation like the one in Seattle is going to be taken to court and ruled on. In the meantime, FAA and other regulators are likely to hash out the drone flight grey areas.

Until then, it's key for legislators to remember that a camera mounted on a drone doesn't need to be treated by the law any differently than any other camera. Drones offer a ton of innovative possibilities for photographers and filmmakers, and it'd be misguided to try to stifle that innovation to try and prevent the already-illegal snooping-on of neighbors.

@derektmead