http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/billpdf/intro/HB0046I.PDF
So as long as I'm "creating art" and not "conducting surveillance", I'm solid.
So as long as I'm "creating art" and not "conducting surveillance", I'm solid.
New Legislation enacted in MO yesterday
- Thread starter StarterH
- Start date
Simon Templar
Member
Well...at least they seem to be TRYING to allow for hobbyists. More than can be said for most of these ill-conceived attempts.
....sT
....sT
Agreed. I'm not overly concerned, but the language is a little vague. I think it will depend on how it's enforced. It'll help if I don't build it to look like this:
View attachment 9588
View attachment 9588
Attachments
Starter I wouldn't get to happy about this. Here's the troubling section:
2. No person, entity, or state agency shall use a drone or other unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance of any individual, property owned by an individual, farm, or agricultural industry without the consent of that individual, property owner, farm or agricultural industry.
Followed by the penalty:
1. Any aggrieved party may in a civil action obtain all appropriate relief to prevent or remedy a violation of this act.
So a worst case scenario. You are out flying in the wide open countryside. You post the GoPro footage on Youtube. Since you were probably shooting things other than blue sky and clouds a farmer sees and recognizes his farm. He did not give you permission and decides to suit with a civil action. Since they didn't define the word 'surveillance' some folks would just use the dictionary definition: "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]close watch kept over someone or something". [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]genesis[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] of the wording in this is driven by the ag industry. A number of years ago they worked hard to ban anyone from taking pictures of a farm or ag operation. It was the result of undercover videos of mis treatment of farm animals etc. Generally found to be unenforceable through some court cases. Example, you are taking pictures of a farm from public road.
So based on all of this my humble opinion is that you can fly but not take any photos/videos of anything that has property in it without the owners permission. That is awfully restrictive and basically shuts down image capture while flying.[/FONT]
2. No person, entity, or state agency shall use a drone or other unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance of any individual, property owned by an individual, farm, or agricultural industry without the consent of that individual, property owner, farm or agricultural industry.
Followed by the penalty:
1. Any aggrieved party may in a civil action obtain all appropriate relief to prevent or remedy a violation of this act.
So a worst case scenario. You are out flying in the wide open countryside. You post the GoPro footage on Youtube. Since you were probably shooting things other than blue sky and clouds a farmer sees and recognizes his farm. He did not give you permission and decides to suit with a civil action. Since they didn't define the word 'surveillance' some folks would just use the dictionary definition: "[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]close watch kept over someone or something". [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]genesis[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] of the wording in this is driven by the ag industry. A number of years ago they worked hard to ban anyone from taking pictures of a farm or ag operation. It was the result of undercover videos of mis treatment of farm animals etc. Generally found to be unenforceable through some court cases. Example, you are taking pictures of a farm from public road.
So based on all of this my humble opinion is that you can fly but not take any photos/videos of anything that has property in it without the owners permission. That is awfully restrictive and basically shuts down image capture while flying.[/FONT]
Ghaynes,
Thanks for the interpretation. It depends entirely on how severely it is read in civil court the first time this is tested. Merriam webster.com had "close watch kept over someone or something (as by a detective)" which would apply if the intent is to get undercover footage of animal mistreatment. However, if the intent is to get aerial photos of a barn and some trees at sunset, it is not "as by a detective".
So, for now, I'll operate on public use spaces and on my own property until that's been tested in MO courts by someone other than me. :tennis:
Thanks for the interpretation. It depends entirely on how severely it is read in civil court the first time this is tested. Merriam webster.com had "close watch kept over someone or something (as by a detective)" which would apply if the intent is to get undercover footage of animal mistreatment. However, if the intent is to get aerial photos of a barn and some trees at sunset, it is not "as by a detective".
So, for now, I'll operate on public use spaces and on my own property until that's been tested in MO courts by someone other than me. :tennis:
I think intent is key here. Intent is key in many laws so this seems pretty common. Here, they list surveillance. We don't do serveilance. To add to this, I think it would be shot down in court. Courts have always held that you only have a right to privacy where a resonable person would expect privacy. I can't peek in your windows and take pics of you, but I can take pics of you walking around outside, as a resonable person wouldn't expect privacy in public. This law seems to follow along with that.
Now if you film some one's back yard, behind their 6 foot privacy fence... well, I'm still not doing surveilance, I'm just a nosey neighbor, but you do have some expectation of privacy behind your fence... that one might be interesting.
Just a quick update. A lawyer friend of mine confirmed what RuralFPV was saying about "intent." If my intent was to take pictures and videos, and I have an established history of taking pictures and videos that are clearly not surveillance, then a civil case would not win. Might cost a little money to go to court in the first place, sadly.
Also, in doing more research on legality: Supposedly, the FAA will have regulations that allow for commercial operation of "Small UAS" (any unmanned aerial system under 55 lbs) by August 2014. Imagine having a career in this!
Also, in doing more research on legality: Supposedly, the FAA will have regulations that allow for commercial operation of "Small UAS" (any unmanned aerial system under 55 lbs) by August 2014. Imagine having a career in this!
helloman1976
Ziptie Relocation Expert
Honestly, I'd like to start a whole new thread and see how many people would fly anyway even if it were illegal. I am one of those who would fly regardless of the law however I'd still respect military compounds and currently restricted areas and areas where signs are posted. I will not however be told that I cannot fly at all and that to do so is breaking the law, especially if I'm out in the field somewhere away from humans etc. How many people feel this way? How many of us fly illegally already? Does everyone have a HAM operator license? See, a law is only as good as it is enforced and just like everything else...there just aren't enough cops to enforce such an idiotic and misplaced set of laws in the first place. The whole thing is a frusterating as it gets but nothing will stop me from flying FPV...just had to rant. Hope others feel strongly in this and feel the same.
helloman1976
Ziptie Relocation Expert
And my AR-15 as well
I agree, big brother needs to back it up and think before they make some new draconian laws that make otherwise law abiding citizens into a new criminal class much like the drug war does. Whew, hit some talking points there didn't I, glad this is a multirotor forum well, that is until Uncle Sam steps into the fray. Let us fly, leave us alone, make us leave others alone and as long as we are not attacking anyone or preventing them from doing what they want to do then all should be well. Things should be simple, you can do whatever you want given it doesn't take the right away from someone else to do whatever they want or affect them in a negative way. Anything above this is too much in my personal opinion. Sitting in some Wildlife Management Area, that I had to walk 1/4 to 1/2 mile to get into, good luck seeing me in there to begin with. Oh, you saw an aircraft? Hmm, wonder where the pilot is at? /goodluckwiththat
Gary Mortimer
Member
Slight point of order, the FAA are saying 2020 for civilian commercial Ops, 2015 is for emergency service use always was but everyone took it as the go. That can't happen before the six test sites are approved and that is nearly seven months late. This makes 2015 and by extension 2020 tight.