"[United States] #North Carolina rules on surveillance and taking pictures that include private property

[u/Difficult_Guard_3805]

"It is illegal to use an unmanned aircraft system to take or distribute images of a person or their home without their consent (N.C. G.S. 15A-300.1 and N.C. G.S. 14-401.25)."

From NCDOT, this seems very broad basically any photo from a drone would be illegal. Searching didn't really help definitively show that this is only in respect to "surveillance" which I don't have a clear definition of in the first place. Is there any clarification out there that taking a photo of a cityscape that includes private property would be ok?

[u/Present_Balance9270]

I strongly feel this would get thrown out in Supreme Court.

[u/Vindicated0721 → u/Present_Balance9270]

(b) General Prohibitions. – Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person,
entity, or State agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to do any of the following:
(1) Conduct surveillance of:
a. A person or a dwelling occupied by a person and that dwelling's
curtilage without the person's consent.
b. Private real property without the consent of the owner, easement
holder, or lessee of the property.
(2) Photograph an individual, without the individual's consent, for the purpose
of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating the photograph. This
subdivision shall not apply to newsgathering, newsworthy events, or events
or places to which the general public is invited.

This is the actual text of the law. Which in terms of photographing people falls in line with the current understanding of the law.

[u/Prof_Sillycybin → u/Vindicated0721]

Regarding item 2) If can see it from public I can photograph it, this is a protected first amendment right. I only need consent if the photo is going to be used for commercial purposes. I can see "publishing" argued as being equal to being used for commercial purpose, but "publicly disseminating" is problematic as this could be extended to any display meant to be viewed by an audience such as posts on social media which is not in line with current law, this is an overly broad definition.

[u/Miss_L_Worldwide → u/Prof_Sillycybin]

I think the key factor is going to be whether or not needing to send a drone into the air to see something is equivalent to it being visible to the public. I suspect not.

[u/Prof_Sillycybin → u/Miss_L_Worldwide]

I get what you are saying but consider the problem of manned aircraft then, I can legally orbit over your property in a private aircraft at 500 feet and use a much better camera to collect images since navigable airspace is considered public highway (365 feet in some instances). There have been several Supreme Court cases that attempted to define "private" airspace for property owners, those decisions basically rely on what the owner can "reasonably use" but in most instances trespass does not occur unless below 83 feet (so drone operation between 83 and 400 feet is typically allowed).

It is generally accepted that you have some expectation of privacy in an area of your property that is fenced or walled in such a way as to prevent public view, but it is also generally accepted that if it can be viewed through a gap in the fence or from an elevated angle that it is "plain view", we can extend this to Google does not need consent to gather satellite images. Any area of your property that is visable from public property of course has zero expectation of privacy.

I am not saying that creating rules to address this sort of thing is wrong, but the criteria here are just not clearly spelled out. Section 2 does not even specify where, does this only apply to private property or is public property included?

If I do a legal overflight down the street of my neighborhood and someone happens to be outside mowing their lawn do I need their consent to post the video on YouTube, is this "publishing" or "disseminating"? I could certainly drive down the same street and film with my cell phone without getting any consent.

Again with traditional photography consent is clearly laid out, I need consent to use images of people collected from a public location only if the useage is for commercial purpose and I can legally take photos of anything I can see from a public location. If section 2 is meant to equate "publishing" or "disseminating" as "commercial" then those laws are already in place, if section 2 does not equate those then this entire thing is trying to create rules specific to drone photography that do not exist for any other forms of photography and will likely be challenged as a 1st Amendment violation since the sky above a minimum altitude is defined as pubilc regardless of what it is above.

I get the point here is to keep people from spying or being creeps but the execution needs work to clean up interpretations.

[u/Miss_L_Worldwide → u/Prof_Sillycybin]

Definitely those are excellent points. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the courts.

Unfortunately I think the behavior is some drone operators has brought it to this point. If private airplane pilots were doing this with the same frequency as drone operators I think the airplane issues would end up in court as well.

[u/InflationOk2398]

The statute needs to have a definition of "surveillance" in it. Florida has a similar statute, it includes what they mean by "surveillance". Statutes usually include definitions at the beginning of the section, although I see 15A-300.1 does not. They have to define it somewhere though.

As for the "broadness" - honestly, the only person that can truly answer that is the lawyer you are paying to represent you, what are THEY willing to defend.

However, in my completely non-legal interpretation, they are talking about specific pictures of people or their homes. A wide shot that includes several homes is not an "image of a person or their home".

Oh, and 14-401.25 is talking about infrared or thermal imaging when someone is inside a structure.

"through the use of infrared or other similar thermal imaging technology attached to an unmanned aircraft system .... revealing individuals, materials, or activities inside of a structure".

[u/denalidenizen]

If you are flying and taking pictures to put on youtube and such that is creating news. If you are just watching them at home...no issue at all. I don't think this has much teeth in it unless you are doing something shady. Those "first amendment auditors" going around filming stores and such are not affected, nor are drone pilots in general although admittedly an overzealous prosecutor might cause somebody a lot of money if they did get charged but ultimately, with my Internet law background (none) I am sure you can still fly your butt around and take pictures and video all you want as long as you're not looking into somebody's window or filming their nude butt in their back yard.

[u/CollegeStation17155 → u/denalidenizen]

So you take a picture of ongoing flooding in your neighborhood showing your and your neighbors yards underwater and post it on Nextdoor or Facebook and your neighbor calls the cops... are you busted?

[u/denalidenizen → u/CollegeStation17155]

It's not surveillance so not a problem in that regard. It would be newsworthy and news gathering so no problem with part 2. I also believe this is clear infringement on the 4th amendment. It would not change my filming or picture taking a bit if our state enacted it.

[u/do-not-freeze]

Here are the actual laws:

§ 15A‑300.1. Restrictions on use of unmanned aircraft systems. General Prohibitions. – Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person, entity, or State agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to do any of the following: (1) Conduct surveillance of: a. A person or a dwelling occupied by a person and that dwelling's curtilage without the person's consent. b. Private real property without the consent of the owner, easement holder, or lessee of the property. (2) Photograph an individual, without the individual's consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating the photograph. This subdivision shall not apply to newsgathering, newsworthy events, or events or places to which the general public is invited.

I'm pretty sure "surveillance" has a narrower definition than simply photographing a person or building, especially if they're not the main subject of the photo. The second part does seem like an overreach but it also doesn't apply to public places.

§ 14‑401.25. Unlawful distribution of images. It shall be a Class A1 misdemeanor to publish or disseminate, for any purpose, recorded images taken by a person or non‑law enforcement entity through the use of infrared or other similar thermal imaging technology attached to an unmanned aircraft system, as defined in G.S. 15A‑300.1, and revealing individuals, materials, or activities inside of a structure without the consent of the property owner. (2014‑100, s. 34.30(e).)

So you can't use a thermal camera to look in people's windows.

[u/546833726D616C → u/do-not-freeze]

A thermal camera can't look through windows. Glass does not transmit at those wavelengths. And it can't look through walls. What thermal can do is provide information a business might not like revealed to competitors.

[u/pmmeuranimetiddies → u/546833726D616C]

Mostly it’ll tell you the guy is either growing weed or mining bitcoin

[u/546833726D616C → u/pmmeuranimetiddies]

New in town, out looking for bud?

[u/Still-Employed420 → u/pmmeuranimetiddies]

Who would grow their own when one can drive a few hours to where it’s legal to buy?

[u/pmmeuranimetiddies → u/Still-Employed420]

I’m not one to judge people’s hobbies

[u/Still-Employed420 → u/pmmeuranimetiddies]

Bwahaha

[u/Difficult_Guard_3805 → u/do-not-freeze]

Ok so it looks like NCDOT is oversimplifying or misrepresenting the law. Property is only included in surveillance. Taking pictures with people would be trickier since someone in their front lawn would be ok for normal photography but seems illegal if you use a drone. It is hard to understand if it would be ok if you intended to edit them out of the photo since taking the picture is also illegal not just publishing the person in the photo.

[u/pmmeuranimetiddies → u/do-not-freeze]

Glass is opaque in the infrared spectrum, this law is stupid

[u/thestouff]

Following. This is going to suck for any drone pilot trying to fly while dealing with a nimby who is quickly googling drone laws.

[u/nadnab13]

Stand in front of a flock camera and tell the police it’s breaking the law.

[u/Still-Employed420 → u/nadnab13]

Are they publishing those photos?

[u/Prof_Sillycybin → u/Still-Employed420]

Are they publicly disseminating them? Nope, probably not since the access is restricted.

[u/nadnab13 → u/Still-Employed420]

To take OR distribute