TX banning aerial photography?
(1/2) > >>
red sweater:
Slashdot has a stub pointing to an article (at robots.net) highlighting a bill introduced in Texas which would prohibit aerial images taken without permission of the property owner. The site posting the article is naturally more concerned with hobbyist/university UAVs, quadcopters, that sort of thing, but it appears KAP would also fall under the ban. Heck, it even mentions sound and odor detection as forms of banned "images."

The article mentions (or posits?) a reason for the ban, but that gets into politics, and is not important in the end to us hobbyists when the result is a blanket ban. As one who has been seriously thinking about getting/making a KAP rig and trying out this extension of kiting, I'm a little worried to hear that -- at least in some places -- this could have legal ramifications. My state is not one of the most "live-and-let-live" states. Are there any states or parks that already have bans? Even if KAP is legal in the jurisdiction, how do you handle an overzealous, under-informed cop or ranger?
Ca Ike:
You really need to read the text in the bill.  IT pertains to private property including businesses not public property.  Gov. buildings have always had a similar rule in place. HOwever 1k fine per image is a bit steep.
and there is something else along these lines up here in NH.....but the fine is sixty odd bucks....
Ben Huggett looked into it on one of the listservs up here

A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person knowingly creates or assists in creating an image of the exterior of any residential dwelling in this state where such image is created by or with the assistance of a satellite, drone, or any device that is not supported by the ground. This prohibition shall not apply where the image does not reveal forms identifiable as human beings or man-made objects. In this paragraph, “dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupancy as, a residence by one or more individuals.

As the definition of a kite includes as an essential element that it be tether to the ground to produce the necessary tension and support to create wind resistance and lift - there is a very strong argument that KAP would not be covered by this statute.

Given that the penalty proposed is a $65 fine - and the cost of an appeal to the state is $10,000 - should it pass, I hope that someone challenges this statute and makes them spend the money.


in response to this one: http://agbeat.com/business-news/aerial-photography-ban-proposed-for-all-but-government/
So does that mean that google's satellite maps of the whole world could be illegal? :-X
GOOGLE EARTH is only for finding your own home(hoping never to see an unfamiliar car in your driveway when your not home) and public land to fly in.... da... ::)
Message Index
Next page