Flight around empty stadiums 14 CFR 99.7

Anttler · Jul 25, 2016

I was walking around my local MLB stadium last night and saw a sign stating that "No Trespassing - Launching landing or operating unmanned or remote controller aircraft (i.e. drones) in or around Commerica Park is prohibited." Then is states 14 CFR 99.7, ADIZ and Special security instructions. yet is seems to me 14 CFR 91.145., would be controlling the airspace around that stadium (1hour befor till 1 hour after a ballgame) I have checked AC 91-63D and it has little clarification on how 14 CFR 99.7 set rules around this stadium besides those listed in 14 CFR 91.147 Am I missing a specific drone law that does not allow me to fly near the stadium outside of these time frames? I was going to fly in the area at some point, but do not want to end up in corresponding with the local FSDO over this.
Not looking for opinions or advice on if I should or if I shouldn't fly, I am just asking if anyone knows if this CFR does or does not allow flight outside MBL TFR's. Also if there any any links to information from the FAA clarifying that information.

Pedals2Paddles · Jul 25, 2016

I can't speak the to the CFRs. However, the owner of the property has posted the launching, landing, or operating would be trespassing. It's private property and the owner said no. You would need to launch, land, and operate from somewhere else. Then, the CFRs come in as it relates to flight over and around the stadium.

Ed Beck · Jul 25, 2016

Also check local laws about flying drones in the city limits in general.

Our two major stadiums in Seattle are in the middle of a lot of private property. Those owners have the right to tell me not to fly over their property. The best I think I could do is to TO/Land on the sidewalk (public property) but that's a can of worms too. Now if there was a public (city-owned) parking lot/garage nearby I think that would work for TO/Land, but it's still a mess.

If what you want is to take video of an empty stadium the first thing I'd do is to contact the owner's marketing department asking if you could and that you'd share the results with them.

Anttler · Jul 25, 2016

I called the FSDO right after posting this thread. The head of GA told me that it should be a 14 CFR 91.145 issue and that 99.7 wouldn't apply. That flight in that area outside the sporting event TFR time is legal. He also asked for a photo of the sign so he could call Commerica Park to questions the use of the sign. I emailed him the photo with a request that he reply in writing that outside the TFR times Commerica park has no right to prohibit flight in the vicinity of the park under 99.7, maybe they applied for a special security instructions

that clarification is not coming back quickly. I am 99.99% sure that this is someone who has bi understanding of the regulation printing a sign without improper guidance. The other stuff is not a problem, public property to operate from close enough is abundant.

cameraguy · Jul 25, 2016

No one ever owns anything just before and near Dawn.

My small city is finishing construction of a new football stadium. I'm planing a short flight around it, TO & Landing on public property, then using an orbit to do the heavy lifting. I'll be at 125 feet minimum, I doubt my little black dot in the sky will get me caught - of course it will be under 2 minutes and I'm outta there

SteveReno · Jul 25, 2016

cameraguy said:
No one ever owns anything just before and near Dawn.

My small city is finishing construction of a new football stadium. I'm planing a short flight around it, TO & Landing on public property, then using an orbit to do the heavy lifting. I'll be at 125 feet minimum, I doubt my little black dot in the sky will get me caught - of course it will be under 2 minutes and I'm outta there

It's after you take video, Going to be in the "Public Domain"
Personal use may work, but....

I would imagine, that most UAV related cases were won/lost due to Video or images at the place in question.
The guy that made that Drone that fired a Pistol & then created a flamethrower Drone......Video got him....
Giant Advertising Co Out of Shy town, Lost Ton's of $$$,$$$. Video prosecutor entered, did it again.

If i can't show it, then i don't need it.

Ed Beck · Jul 25, 2016

Generally something that can be observed from public property has no expectations of privacy, I'm sure this is well known on this forum

Something that can trip you up though is copyrighted images or objects if you intend the video for commercial use. Most public art and some buildings are copyrighted. The Space Needle on Seattle is copyrighted.

They don't go after vacationers of course, but if someone wants to use an image for commercial purposes they have a right to weigh in on it to protect their image or take a cut if they want.

Anttler · Jul 25, 2016

Well I received a reply.

I have assigned this to Inspector XXXXXX XXXXXX, he can be reached at XXX-XXX-XXXX. We are trying to find out how the folks at Comerica came up with 99.7 as their reference for this. Before flying a UAV in the vicinity of Comerica, Ford Field or any of the federal buildings downtown you might want to check with the Detroit Police Department or city zoning offices to see if there are any local restrictions on UAV flying.

It looks good to go.

yt lee · Jul 30, 2016

Anttler said:
Well I received a reply.

I have assigned this to Inspector XXXXXX XXXXXX, he can be reached at XXX-XXX-XXXX. We are trying to find out how the folks at Comerica came up with 99.7 as their reference for this. Before flying a UAV in the vicinity of Comerica, Ford Field or any of the federal buildings downtown you might want to check with the Detroit Police Department or city zoning offices to see if there are any local restrictions on UAV flying.

It looks good to go.

You may get sued for unauthorized use of the image.

Pedals2Paddles · Jul 30, 2016

You can't be sued for unauthorized use of images if you took the image. You can't steal your own image, it's already yours.

Ed Beck · Jul 30, 2016

It depends. If you're not looking to make money from it then there shouldn't be any problem.

If you're benefitting though then it depends if there's any copyrighted images or objects in your image. For example the baseball team could get ticked off if their logo was in your image. The artist who created a statue for the stadium could also sue you if you benefited from his work being in your image.

Pedals2Paddles · Jul 30, 2016

How would it be any different than a commercial photographer standing on the ground taking a picture of the stadium? The stuff is in plain open public view.

Ed Beck · Jul 30, 2016

That's how copyright law is. I can't charge someone for a photo in which a copyrighted object is contributing to the image. They can't use it for advertisement. If an object is contributing to an image or not is a can of worms I don't want to open, so I just avoid copyrighted objects in any of my commercial photos.

I want to be clear though that someone who's taking a vacation photo of their kids sitting on a copyrighted statue is just fine. No one is going to gain from that.

I don't make the tea leaves, I just read them.

Pedals2Paddles · Jul 30, 2016

I see. That's annoying. Can I copyright myself so nobody can use a picture of me for profit without me getting a cut?

SARDG · Jul 30, 2016

Pedals2Paddles said:
I see. That's annoying. Can I copyright myself so nobody can use a picture of me for profit without me getting a cut?

Probably no danger of anyone wanting a picture of you...

Ed Beck · Jul 30, 2016

Hmmmm, good question. So good that I wanted to look it up.

Sorry - nope, unless you're Tom Cruise...

In a word, no; you cannot copyright yourself.

There is a section of the law that falls under trademark whereby a famous person has expanded rights to their likeness; if you are famous (Tom Cruise is famous; Colonel Sanders is famous; Michelle Obama is famous; Michael Jordan is famous; Steve Jobs was famous), you can claim those rights to your likeness, name, and so forth under trademark law. If you're not famous, you don't have the same rights because, quite frankly, your likeness isn't worth as much as that of a famous person is.

Now if the person is on your private property when they take the image you have a chance of claiming that they didn't have the right, especially if you're in your backyard and there's a high fence around your property. If though they're on the street and you're in plain view then sorry - no expectation of privacy.