Aerial newsgathering has

Transcription

1 Journo-Drones: A Flight over the Legal Landscape BY NABIHA SYED AND MICHAEL BERRY Aerial newsgathering has long captured the public s imagination. In 1906 just three years after Orville Wright made the first sustained, powered flight George Lawrence used 17 kites and steel wire to suspend a 46-pound camera into the air and capture panoramic photos of San Francisco following the epic earthquake and ensuing fires that ravaged the city. Fifty-two years later, John Silva changed the landscape of television news reporting through the KTLA5 Telecopter, ensuring that news helicopters could deliver live traffic updates and car chases alike to the masses. Drones represent the latest technological advance in the storied history of bird s-eye newsgathering. As journo-drones begin to fly on the scene, journalists will need to navigate through existing state and federal laws and a rapidly growing thicket of new regulations and statutes. In this article, we seek to explain the emerging legal framework for journo-drones and examine areas in which further regulation and rulemaking may develop. Why Journo-Drones? Like the Telecopters of yesteryear, journalists today are eager to put drones to work. Those drones, known in the technology industry and among regulators as small unmanned aircraft systems (suas), come in many shapes and sizes. Some look like model airplanes or helicopters. Others look nothing like the manned aircraft that we have seen in the past, taking the form of futuristic minispaceships with multiple rotors. The drones that most journalists would like to use span less Nabiha Syed is an associate in the New York office of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP. Michael Berry is a partner in the firm s Philadelphia office. The authors thank Sophie Benjamin and Marla Kelley for their assistance with this article. than two feet in diameter and weigh just a few pounds. And they are inexpensive. Today, a small Parrot AR drone, which can fly a few hundred feet in the air for about fifteen minutes, costs only $ The cost of a more sophisticated drone can range from roughly $1,000 to $40,000, depending on its size, the distance it can travel, and the time it can stay in the air. 2 Drones offer journalists many benefits for newsgathering. First, and most obviously, drones have the ability to capture incredible images, offering vantage points that previously could only be captured by helicopters at far greater cost. 3 In addition, drones offer viewpoints that helicopters cannot capture. Drones small size permits accessibility into otherwise hard-toreach areas, allowing versatility in vantage points that range seamlessly from up above to up close, into tight spots, and in between obstacles. They also are much less noisy than helicopters, allowing them to record much less obtrusively. Because drones are unmanned, they also eradicate the need for human safety considerations that restrict manned aircraft. For example, drones can easily fly over forest fires, into dangerous conflict zones, and even into erupting volcanoes, all without risking human life. 4 In addition, drones can be equipped with a wide array of wikimedia sensors to gather data about weather, temperature, radiation, and other environmental information that can be used to supplement video recording. In the United States, The Daily, News Corporation s now-defunct tablet newspaper, was the first news outlet to use a drone for newsgathering. In 2011, The Daily flew camera-equipped drones to survey the flood-ravaged landscape of North Dakota and the devastation wrought by tornadoes in Alabama. 5 Although on-the-ground reporting might have given a close-up of destroyed buildings, and helicopter imagery could have displayed the destroyed horizon, The Daily s news drones were able to switch between these vantage points effectively, offering people perspectives that otherwise could never have been seen. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was not impressed. The agency quickly investigated whether The Daily s use of drones violated FAA regulations. Although the FAA did not take any action against The Daily, the news of legal scrutiny was enough to chill many journalists from experimenting with using drones for newsgathering. The Daily s early experience with drones gave a hint at their value as a new reporting tool. That experience does not stand alone. For example, in 2012 a hobbyist flying his drone over

2 the Trinity River in Texas noticed a nearby creek with red rivulets, which, upon closer inspection, were streams of pig blood flowing from a local slaughterhouse. After the hobbyist reported his findings to [local officials,]... a lengthy investigation ensued. 6 Likewise, in 2013, while Colorado was in the midst of horrific rains and flooding, a private company used drones to map the floods in an effort to educate the public and assist authorities. 7 Internationally, drones have been used to capture dramatic footage of protests in Kiev, typhoon damage in Thailand, cricket games in Australia, and Olympic events in Sochi. 8 Reporters in other countries also have used drones to circumvent traditional limits on access: in Australia, one media company used a drone to observe refugee encampments on Christmas Island after being denied permission to view the area. 9 Just as drones have their advantages, they also pose risks. Those risks have made headlines over the past year. For instance, last fall, a drone in Manhattan caromed off a building, falling hundreds of feet and landing at the feet of pedestrians on the sidewalk below. 10 In Brooklyn, a man was killed when his own drone hit him in the head. 11 And a wedding photographer s drone accidentally flew into a groom who was posing for romantic images with his bride-to-be. 12 Perhaps the biggest news about the risks posed by drones involved Senator Dianne Feinstein s claim that her privacy had been invaded by one. Senator Feinstein spoke to Politico and 60 Minutes about an incident in which she believes a drone was flown outside the window of her house during a protest. 13 Given these safety and privacy concerns, and in light of The Daily s early experience, journalism drones in the United States largely have been grounded. Yet, the technology continues to develop rapidly, and the demand to use drones has grown exponentially. The law has moved more slowly. Early Legal Landscape In 1958, Congress enacted the Federal Aviation Act, which established the FAA and directed it to develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. 14 Safety is at the heart of the FAA, as the 1958 act was passed in the aftermath of a tragic midair collision between a Trans World Airlines Super Constellation and a United Air Lines DC-7 over the Grand Canyon, which killed all 128 people on board the planes. 15 In the years that followed, the FAA began to implement rules to allow aircraft to safely navigate the skies. At the same time, people began to build and use model airplanes as a hobby. In 1981, the FAA issued Advisory Circular 91-57, which asks hobbyists to avoid flying their model airplanes above 400 feet; within three miles of airports; and near full-scale aircraft, populated areas, or noise-sensitive areas such as parks, schools, hospitals, and churches. 16 The Advisory Circular, which was not promulgated as a formal FAA rule, called for hobbyists voluntary compliance as a means to ensure public safety. For nearly a quarter century, it stood as the FAA s only administrative guidance on small unmanned aircraft. Then, in 2005, as drone technology developed and began to enter the domestic marketplace, the FAA issued a memorandum outlining an interim policy for approving drones for domestic use. 17 That memorandum stated that drone operators would be held accountable for controlling [their] aircraft to the same responsible standard as the pilot of a manned aircraft and explained that the FAA s regulation concerning careless and reckless operation of an aircraft applied to drones. The 2005 memorandum was supplemented two years later by a new FAA policy statement on drones. 18 That statement allows hobbyists to fly drones under the Advisory Circular issued in 1981 but stresses that the circular only applies to modelers and thus specifically excludes its use by persons or companies for business purposes. 19 The 2007 policy statement further provides that, except for hobbyists, no person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace without specific authority. 20 The 2007 policy statement explains that the FAA will authorize two types of entities to use drones, and those entities operate under different regimes. Public entities (i.e., federal, state, and local government agencies) can obtain a certificate of authorization to use drones. 21 For example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection holds a certificate of authorization and maintains a large cache of drones that serves as a lending library for other public entities. 22 Civil entities (i.e., private companies) can seek a special airworthiness certificate. 23 Very few of these certificates have been issued, with nearly all of them going to defense companies like Honeywell and Raytheon and one going to ConocoPhillips to monitor oil drilling in Alaska. 24 Obtaining a special airworthiness certificate requires an especially rigorous showing of how the drone system is designed and constructed, including software development, control, and qualityassurance procedures. 25 No media entity has received a special airworthiness certificate. In general, neither the certificates of authorization nor the special airworthiness certificates are broad grants of permission: almost all are granted narrowly for specific times, locations, and operations. 26 Although the 2007 policy statement indicated that it would undertake a safety review of drones and possibly provide new rules as a result, no rules were ever proposed. FAA Enforcement in a No-Rule Regime Recognizing the growing demand by companies, journalists, government agencies, and others to use drones, and frustrated by the FAA s delay in promulgating regulations addressing drone technology, in 2012 Congress enacted the FAA Modernization and Reform Act ( FMRA ). 27 The act requires the FAA to devise a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace by September This plan must address public, civil, and commercial use of drones of all sizes, including those drones that are of the greatest interest to journalists the category of small drones (i.e., any drone under 55 pounds). 29 Cease-and Desist Letters In the absence of formal rules regulating drones, the FAA has relied

3 on its 2007 policy statement to issue cease-and-desist letters to people flying drones without FAA authorization. In many instances, the agency has sent cease-and-desist letters to people and companies flying drones for commercial purposes, whether those purposes are to take photos of houses for real estate promotions, to deliver dry cleaning, or to record images of baseball players at spring training. 30 The FAA also has construed newsgathering to be a commercial use, sending cease-anddesist letters to media companies that have used drones in their reporting. 31 In addition, in 2013, the FAA sent cease-and-desist letters to two public universities with drone journalism programs, one at the University of Missouri and the other at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 32 The FAA required both programs to halt their operations and apply for certificates of authorization before continuing. Huerta v. Pirker The FAA has just once taken action to punish someone for flying a drone. Raphael Trappy Pirker, a wellknown drone enthusiast and operator, was hired to obtain aerial photos and video of the University of Virginia campus. On October 17, 2011, Pirker operated his 4.5-pound Ritewing Zephyr powered glider to snap a variety of shots. The FAA alleged that he flew the drone at extremely low altitudes, through tunnels with moving cars below, and in close proximity to railway tracks and individuals, all in violation of an FAA regulation stating that no person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. 33 In light of this alleged violation, the FAA levied a $10,000 civil penalty against Pirker. (The private company that had hired Pirker to operate the drone faced no fine, nor did it receive a cease-and-desist letter.) Pirker fought the enforcement action in front of the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB), arguing that the FAA did not have any authority to fine someone operating a drone because it had not issued any formal rules governing their use. Although the FAA s 2005 memorandum and 2007 policy statement claimed that drone operators were subject to FAA regulation and purported to ban commercial use of drones, Pirker argued that these pronouncements were unenforceable because they had not been issued as formal rules consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. Thus, Pirker contended, the pronouncements could not bind him, and the fine was unenforceable. 34 On March 6, 2014, an NTSB administrative law judge agreed. According to the judge, if the FAA s contention concerning the scope of its existing regulations were correct, its position would then result in the risible argument that a flight in the air of, e.g., a paper aircraft, or a toy balsa wood glider, could subject the operator to FAA s existing regulations. 35 Moreover, that judge held that at the time of Pirker s flight, there was no enforceable FAA rule that governed Pirker s drone. 36 As the judge explained, Congress enacted the FMRA because there were no effective rules or regulations in place. 37 Not surprisingly, the FAA appealed the Huerta v. Pirker ruling almost immediately. That appeal is pending. In announcing its decision to appeal the ruling, the FAA expressed concern that the administrative law judge s decision would impact the safety of national airspace and emphasized its view that the appeal stayed the ruling. 38 Following the judge s decision, however, some have questioned whether the FAA has the authority to send cease-and-desist orders in the absence of an enforceable law. 39 Indeed, after the Pirker decision was issued, a federal lawsuit was filed directly challenging the FAA s authority. In April 2014, Texas Equusearch, a non-profit search-and-rescue organization that uses drones to find missing persons, filed a petition for review in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. alleging that it received a cease-and-desist letter from the FAA ordering it to stop immediately its rescue efforts because they are illegal. 40 Equusearch claims that it has no commercial purpose and is asking the court to set aside the FAA s order. In its filings, Equusearch argues that the FAA has no power to issue cease-and-desist letters in the absence of formal rules. Regardless of the merits of this legal argument and the FAA s view on the viability of the Pirker ruling, prospective drone operators would be well advised to remain cautious given the FAA s position on its enforcement power and the political risks of drawing the ire of regulators and politicians as they contemplate how to govern drones domestic use. Philosophical Approaches to Regulation As the Pirker case and appeal have proceeded, the FAA, Congress, state legislatures, and local governments have wrestled with how to regulate drones and how to address the safety and privacy issues that they raise. The possible fields of regulation fall into at least six categories that could implicate newsgathering: operators, flight, property, devices, behavior, and consent. Some of these categories may be impractical, while others pose grave constitutional issues. Nevertheless, these six categories offer a framework to make sense of the flurry of federal, state, and local legislation and regulation emerging around the use of drones. Regulating Drone Operators Governments might permit only certain people or entities to fly drones. For instance, regulations might provide that only government entities can use drones. They might provide that only people with a valid, governmentissued certificate or license can fly drones. Alternatively, they might say that drones can only be flown for certain purposes. Regulating Flight Governments might regulate the flight of drones, specifically when, where, and how drones can be flown. For example, some governments might consider allowing private drone use only during daylight hours, in places with few people, and within the operator s line of sight (i.e., the operator must be able to see the drone at all times). Alternatively, they might say that drones can only be flown for certain purposes. Regulating Property Involved Governments might regulate drones ability to record images based on the property involved, treating public and

4 private property differently or distinguishing between congested areas and open spaces. Likewise, the regulations could restrict or prohibit recording in places where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Regulating Devices Governments might regulate the recording devices on drones, for example, by restricting drones use of telephoto lenses or night-vision technology. As drones are increasingly seen as platforms for other types of data journalism, including air quality sensors or barometers, this kind of regulation may be of particular note. Regulating Behavior Governments might regulate recording people engaged in certain behavior. For instance, following California s anti-paparazzi laws, legislators might attempt to limit drones recording people engaged in personal or familial activities. Regulating Consent Finally, governments might regulate the surreptitious use of drones. This objective might be accomplished by requiring drone operators to obtain consent before flying over private property or filming someone. Alternatively, drone operators might be required to provide notice of where they are flying or filming, or governments might require drones to be made more visible by requiring them to be certain colors or sizes. The FAA Takes Action Roadmap As the Pirker case was progressing before NTSB, the FAA moved closer toward fulfilling its congressional mandate under the FMRA. In November 2013, the FAA released its first annual Integration of Civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems in National Airspace System Roadmap (Roadmap). 41 The Roadmap is not a set of regulations; rather, it is a guide for the type of regulations that the FAA hopes to eventually implement. Notably, the Roadmap distinguishes between the integration of larger commercial drones and small drones, whose proposed rule making is now scheduled for late 2014; the integration will happen quite slowly, over a period involving technical testing and rule making that may span a decade. 42 Although the Roadmap does not elaborate on what rules will ultimately bind small drones, the 72-page document does flag several categories of possible regulation that should be of interest to any drone operator interested in newsgathering: pilot certification, line-of-sight requirements, time limitations, technological constraints, and other constraints. One category not addressed is privacy. Pilot Certification The Roadmap made clear that the FAA wants to ensure that each aircraft is flown by a pilot in accordance with required procedures and practices. 43 Thus, some form of drone pilot certification seems likely. At this point, it is not clear whether any licensing process would be as involved as the process for obtaining certification to fly a manned aircraft or whether some more easily attainable process will be proposed. Should a pilot s license be required for the use of small drones, fewer people will be qualified to fly them. If the licensing process is akin to the process needed to become certified to pilot a manned aircraft, the barrier to entry will be high, and media companies likely will need to work closely with other companies to produce and license content for drone use not dissimilar from how helicopter footage is obtained. In any case, some baseline level of training and licensing is likely to be required, particularly given the variant environmental factors that can affect the flight of drones and thereby increase the physical danger that they can pose. Line-of-Sight Requirements The Roadmap indicates that small drones will have to be operated within visual line of sight; that is, operators must always be able to see their drones as they fly. 44 Should the FAA ultimately require that a drone remain in visual line of sight as opposed to radio line of sight (that is, remotely controllable), then certain types of reporting (such as flying over forest fires, natural disasters, or even large protests) might be impossible. This kind of regulation thus would reduce some of the access benefits of drone journalism, i.e., a drone can quickly retrieve content from locations that are too remote or unsafe for an individual or team of journalists. Time Limitations The Roadmap states that small-drone nighttime operations will be reviewed with a goal of increased night operations for public entities by This statement might suggest that the FAA will not permit private citizens to fly drones at night. Technological Constraints There are a number of technological means of ensuring safety and accountability of drones, such as detect-and-avoid technology to prevent crashing; returnto-base functionality to prevent lost drones; information-assurance mechanisms to prevent hacking; and possible tools to allow for identification of drones, such as radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags or registration numbers. The Roadmap alludes to each of these technologies. 46 Should the FAA require any of these systems for drone flight, the market and cost of drones could change considerably. One of the reasons that drones are so appealing at the moment is that they are low in cost and easy to purchase. Mandating that drones contain sophisticated technology will drive up their cost and likely will affect media outlets ability to use them for newsgathering. Other Constraints The Roadmap declares that the forthcoming small-drone regulations may have operational, airspace, and performance constraints. 47 The Roadmap itself does not address what these constraints might be, but if, for example, the forthcoming regulations prohibit flying over populated areas, that prohibition effectively would ban drones from many metropolitan areas and greatly constrain the type of reporting that can be undertaken. Similarly, if the FAA continues to follow a regime similar to the existing certificates of authorization and special airworthiness certifications, then small drones may not be able to fly until gaining specific authority per flight to do so severely hampering the use of drones for breaking news but likely not affecting closed-set filming or preplanned events. Preregistration of a flight plan (submitting intent-to-fly and location information but no requirement to receive approval) may strike a balance between documentation and newsgathering.

5 Test Sites In December 2013, one month after releasing the Roadmap, the FAA announced the establishment of six test sites. 48 The sites are designed to be laboratories where policy makers and developers can assess various issues with drones and observe how they operate in different settings. To that end, the six sites are geographically and climactically diverse, and each will focus on different technology and operational issues. 49 The FAA, through its test sites, offered an indication of how it might approach the privacy question. In announcing the test sites, the FAA stated that it was not... taking specific views on whether or how the federal government should regulate privacy or the scope of data that can be collected by drones. 50 Instead, it instructed each test site to create its own privacy rules, explaining that test sites and the drones that fly in them must comply with federal, state, and other laws protecting an individual s right to privacy. The FAA also has required each site to have publicly available privacy policies as well as a written plan for data use and retention. Finally, the FAA requires that the test sites implement an annual review of privacy practices and allow for public comment. 51 Legislation Looms Commercial drone use has not escaped the attention of federal and state legislators. Unsurprisingly, privacy is a central concern, and that concern could impact journalists ability to use drones for newsgathering. In Congress, legislators have proposed three major bills focusing on the privacy implications of both data collection and data storage. For example, the Preserving American Privacy Act of 2013, proposed by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Cal.), would prohibit private drone operators from capturing highly offensive data involving personal or familial activity... in which the [person] ha[s] a reasonable expectation of privacy. 52 Meanwhile, the Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act, offered by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would require that drone users obtain a license and submit a data collection statement detailing who will operate the drone, where the drone will be flown, what kind of data will be collected, how that data will be used, whether the information will be sold to third parties, and the period of time for which the information could be retained. 53 The Markey bill also requires that the FAA create a publicly available website that lists all approved licenses and includes the data collection and data minimization statements, any data security breaches suffered by a licensee, and the times and locations of drone flights. 54 Similarly, the Safeguarding Privacy and Fostering Aerospace Innovation Act of 2013, proposed by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Utah), would prohibit any business or individual from willfully conduct[ing] surveillance of another person using drones and would require drones to be clearly marked with the name, address, and telephone number of the owner. 55 Though none has passed, these bills suggest how privacy concerns may be addressed at the federal level. In the absence of federal legislation and regulation, a number of states have leaped into the legal quagmire. 56 To date, 43 different states have considered drone legislation, with nine passing laws regulating the use of drones. 57 All nine of those states have placed restrictions on the government s use of drones. Almost all of these laws revolve around protecting citizens privacy, particularly from intrusion by law enforcement. 58 Two states have placed moratoriums on government agencies ability to use drones until the summer of Three states Oregon, Texas, and Idaho have passed laws regulating private use of drones, which could have an impact on journalists in those states. 60 Each state has taken a different tack. Oregon centers its rule on private property. In doing so, it has created a private cause of action that a private property owner can assert against a drone operator if (1) a drone has flown less than 400 feet above the owner s property at least one time, (2) the property owner has notified the drone operator that he does not consent to the drone flying over his property, and (3) the operator subsequently flies the drone less than 400 feet above the property again. 61 Some exceptions exist for taking off and landing. 62 Under Oregon s law, the property owner can seek injunctive relief, treble damages for any injury to the person or the property, and attorney fees if the amount of damages is under $10, Oregon s drone law also criminalizes certain types of conduct, such as crashing into an aircraft or firing bullets from drones, to enhance safety. 64 Texas s drone law, tellingly named the Texas Privacy Act, permits drones to capture images only under enumerated circumstances. 65 For example, it allows images to be captured by electric and natural gas utilities for some purposes and by real estate brokers looking to sell property, as long as no person is identifiable in the image. 66 The law also permits drones to capture images of people on public real property, of people on real property that is within 25 miles of the United States border, and with the consent of the individual who owns or lawfully occupies the real property captured in the image. 67 Texas, however, has outlawed using drones to capture images of people or privately owned property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property. 68 Significantly, the law does not define surveillance. This offense is a misdemeanor, and the law states that a person can defend against the law by showing that she has destroyed the image as soon as she realizes it was captured and has not disclosed it to anyone else. 69 The law likewise makes it a misdemeanor to possess, disclose, distribute, or otherwise use an image after capturing it in violation of the law. 70 In addition to these criminal provisions, Texas has created a private cause of action for owners and tenants of private property. That action allows them to enjoin an imminent violation of the criminal provisions and to seek civil penalties, including $5,000 for images captured in a single episode and $10,000 for the disclosure or distribution of any images captured in a single episode. 71 An owner and tenant also can recover actual damages if she can show that the images were disclosed or distributed with malice. 72 Furthermore, the prevailing party can collect reasonable attorney fees. 73

6 Finally, Idaho has passed the most sweeping legislation on private drone use. Its law prohibits people from using drones to photograph or otherwise record an individual, without such individual s written consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph or recording. 74 The law, which would undoubtedly face constitutional challenges if enforced, allows a person to assert a private cause of action and recover either $1,000, or actual and general damages, whichever is greater, plus attorney fees, and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 75 Local governments have also jumped into the fray. For example, Conoy Township, Pennsylvania, has passed an ordinance prohibiting remote-controlled aircraft from being flown above another person s property without the property owner s permission. 76 A violation of that ordinance can be punished by a fine of up to $ Among the many states considering legislation to restrict private drone use, two states that are home to many media companies, California and New York, are considering bills that could impact journalists ability to use drones for newsgathering. Last year, the California Senate passed a bill that would extend California s antipaparazzi, wiretap, and Peeping Tom laws to cover audio, video, and images obtained by drones. 78 In addition, that bill provides that information obtained by government-agency drones would be accessible under California s Public Records Act. 79 Several drone-related bills also are pending in New York. Two proposals underscore the threat that new legislation might pose to the press. One bill would create a felony for surreptitiously view[ing], broadcast[ing], or record[ing] another person... at a place and time when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 80 The second provides that a person would commit a misdemeanor by using a drone to conduct surveillance of or to monitor any individual inside his or her home or place of worship or within the closed confines of their property or other locations where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the person is doing so for lawful purposes. 81 Although the New York legislature has not acted on any of the drone bills yet, bills pending in that state should be watched closely because its courts do not recognize any torts remedying alleged invasions of privacy and because the state contains an FAA test site location. All of these legislative efforts can be seen as measures to prevent the rapid expansion of drone use in the absence of clear guidance from the FAA. It remains to be seen whether more states will rush to pass drone laws in the aftermath of the Pirker decision or if they will wait to see the FAA s proposed small-drone rules anticipated later in Either way, journalists and their counsel should keep a close eye on state legislators in the coming months and years. Tort Law Amidst this thicket of legislation, reporters and media attorneys should not forget that existing state tort law and statutes of general applicability serve to regulate drones and provide many avenues of potential liability. Some of the possible legal pitfalls are the same ones that pose risks for more traditional methods of newsgathering and reporting. Others raise new concerns. As with all newsgathering that involves audio and video recording, journalists who use drones must be aware of common-law torts and statutes addressing their subjects privacy. In the common-law context, drone operators must consider the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. As newsroom counsel know all too well, the intrusion tort has two necessary elements: (1) a person intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, and (2) the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. 82 As the comments in the Restatement (Second) of Torts section addressing intrusion explain, the tort can be committed through the use of the defendant s senses, with or without mechanical aids, to oversee or overhear the plaintiff s private affairs, as by looking into his upstairs windows with binoculars. 83 Critically, the intrusion tort requires the defendant to pry into a private place or otherwise invade[] a private seclusion that the plaintiff has thrown about his person or affairs. 84 Given small drones dexterity in flight and ability to film inconspicuously, it is conceivable that drone operators might intrude in a plaintiff s private affairs in their attempt to gather information. 85 Although journalists generally cannot be held liable for intrusion when the subject being recorded is in a public place, even that kind of newsgathering might pose some risk of an intrusion claim when it involves drones. 86 Indeed, under certain limited circumstances, droneassisted recording may come close to the type of stakeout that one federal court has admonished. In Wolfson v. Lewis, the court considered a plaintiff s claims against a television station whose camera crew camped outside of his home to obtain footage for a report on the high salaries paid to executives in the health-care industry. 87 The court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the camera crew from invading the plaintiff s privacy, as well as stalking and harassment, finding that the continued surveillance display[ed] a cavalier disregard for the right of ordinary citizens to enjoy the solitude and tranquility of their lives and their right to be let alone. 88 The court reasoned that such an injunction would be narrow so as not to impair legal newsgathering activities. Given this ruling and similar decisions finding intrusions in other contexts, sustained recording of a space or continually tracking someone with a drone, even if done from a public place, may be actionable under certain circumstances in some jurisdictions. 89 The flip side of the intrusion tort, which addresses gathering information in a manner that invades someone s privacy, is the publication of private facts tort. A person commits that tort if he publishes or broadcasts private information about someone else if the disclosure of that information would be highly offensive to the reasonable person and the information is not a matter of legitimate public concern. In general, media companies only publish information if it is newsworthy. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that drone operators might capture images of people s private affairs that are then

Statement of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies to the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet

I. INTRODUCTION The benefits of commercial and private unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) are substantial. Technology has moved forward rapidly, and what used to be considered toys are quickly becoming powerful

Insurance For Commercial Drones A lecture by Dr. Edward (Ned) Swan, Elborne Mitchell LLP 29 July 2015 These notes are derived from a talk by Dr. Edward (Ned) Swan of Elborne Mitchell LLP, given at Lloyd's

Before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation United States House of Representatives For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT Wednesday Dec. 10, 2014 CC-2015-002

HOT TOPICS IN EMPLOYMENT LAW E-Mail, Voicemail, and Employees Right To Privacy: Monitoring Employees Electronic Communications by Andrew M. Low Employers have plenty of legitimate reasons for wanting to

118 STAT. 661 Public Law 108 237 108th Congress An Act To encourage the development and promulgation of voluntary consensus standards by providing relief under the antitrust laws to standards development

Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Inquiry Concerning High Speed Access to ) GN Docket No. 00-185 the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities ) Proprietary

Second Regular Session 118th General Assembly (2014) PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision

University of Missouri senior Jaime Cooke photographs a drone flying through the air at Big Muddy Fish and Wildlife Refuge in Columbia, Mo. Photo by Sally French 18 Quill MARCH/APRIL 2013 By David Wolfgang

DataGuidance is the leading global data protection and privacy compliance resource tool, created with a single aim - to make data protection and privacy compliance simpler. It delivers, in one site, legal

~ (c) S.B. NO. \ JAN 0 A BILL FOR AN ACT THE SENATE TWENTY-EIGHTH LEGISLATURE, 0 STATE OF HAWAII RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII: ' SECTION. Section

U.S. Department of The Inspector General Office of Inspector General Transportation Washington, DC 20590 Office of the Secretary of Transportation March 21, 2011 The Honorable Jerry F. Costello Ranking

Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Trends and Legislation Douglas Shinkle Program Principal NCSL Transportation Program What is NCSL? NCSL is a bipartisan organization. All 50 state legislatures are our members.

PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the

AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To amend the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to make the District s false claims act consistent with federal law and thereby qualify

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any

PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN NEVADA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM Carl Tobias* In late July 2002, a special session of the Nevada Legislature passed medical malpractice reform legislation. 1 The expressly-stated

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE APPLICATION OF THE : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO : Misc. No. 01-189 (Magistrate Judge Bredar) 18 U.S.C. 2703(d)

GPS Tracking of Employees: Balancing Employees Right to Privacy with Employers Right to Know The Law, Potential Issues, and Best Practices. By Brian J. Moore and Ashley C. Pack Presenters Bi Brian J. Moore

November 9, 2006 Deficit Reduction Act Employee Information Requirements The Deficit Reduction Act ( DRA ) requires states participating in the Medicaid program to amend their State Plans to mandate that

Questions And Answers Electron ic Monitoring in the Workplace Kevin J. Smith and Rachel J. Tischler Employers and employment attorneys alike have been concerned about the legal limits of electronic monitoring

Privacy Versus Security in the Workplace ALAN L. PEPPER AND BETHANIE F. THAU An important challenge facing employers today is balancing the security of the workplace versus the privacy rights of employees.

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL PENALTIES AGAINST FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT The Clean Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency administratively to assess civil penalties

Title: Current Construction Injury Law in California Issue: Oct Year: 2003 Current Construction Injury Law in California Morgan C. Smith Since the last issue of the Forum dedicated to construction litigation,

THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) AND DISCOVERY TWO DIFFERENT AVENUES FOR ACCESSING AGENCY RECORDS AND THE BENEFITS OF LEVERAGING E- DISCOVERY TOOLS FOR FOIA The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MICHAEL TANKERSLEY, 1060 N. Montana Street, Arlington, VA 22205, v. Plaintiff JAMES W. ALMAND, in his official capacity as Trustee of the Client

13-20-801. Short title Colorado Revised Statutes Title 13; Article 20; Part 8: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT ACTIONS FOR PROPERTY LOSS AND DAMAGE 1 This part 8 shall be known and may be cited as the Construction

Family Policy Compliance Office Guidelines: Disclosure of Education Records Concerning Registered Sex Offenders This guidance concerns an amendment to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974

THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF NEW YORK, IOWA, MAINE, MARYLAND, OREGON AND WASHINGTON Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington,

UPDATED OIG Guidelines for Evaluating State False Claims Acts Note: These guidelines are effective March 15, 2013, and replace the guidelines effective on August 21, 2006, found at 71 FR 48552. UPDATED

CLIENT MEMORANDUM FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FALSE MARKING ACTIONS In a decision that will likely reduce the number of false marking cases, the Federal Circuit

Article 33C. Meetings of Public Bodies. 143-318.9. Public policy. Whereas the public bodies that administer the legislative, policy-making, quasi-judicial, administrative, and advisory functions of North

National Labor Relations Board Rules That Mandatory Arbitration Clause Violates The National Labor Relations Act October 16, 2006 In a recent decision potentially affecting all companies that use mandatory

Before the FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, DC 20580 In the Matter of ) ) Maricopa County Community College District ) ) ) Complaint, Request for Investigation, Injunction, and Other Relief Submitted

Reflections on Ethical Issues In the Tripartite Relationship [click] By Bruce A. Campbell 1 Introduction In most areas of the practice of law, there are a number of ethical issues that arise on a frequent

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 October 6, 2004 The Honorable Lane Evans Ranking Minority Member Committee on Veterans Affairs House of Representatives Subject: Veterans

False Claims Act Regulations by State Under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, those who knowingly submit, or cause another person or entity to submit, false claims for payment of The purpose of