{"id":3787,"date":"2015-10-29T11:57:03","date_gmt":"2015-10-29T15:57:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=3787"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:33","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:33","slug":"amended-california-legislation-places-new-restrictions-on-paparazzi-drones","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/amended-california-legislation-places-new-restrictions-on-paparazzi-drones\/","title":{"rendered":"Amended California Legislation Places New Restrictions on Paparazzi Drones"},"content":{"rendered":"

Amended legislation<\/a>\u00a0recently passed in California expanded the definition of \u201cphysical invasion of privacy\u201d to prohibit paparazzi drones from trespassing on private property to obtain photographs or video footage of individuals. Under the updated California Civil Code Section 1708.8(a), \u201c[a] person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise committed a trespass in order to physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a person or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.<\/p>\n

Drones<\/a>\u00a0are \u201cunmanned aerial vehicles\u201d or \u201cremotely piloted aerial systems,\u201d which have been used by the military for tasks such as capturing visual surveillance, listening to cell phone conversations, or delivering missiles.<\/p>\n

\n

The advancement of\u00a0drone technology<\/a>\u00a0has increased privacy concerns for California residents, especially celebrities who are targeted by paparazzi attaching cameras to drones to obtain photographs and video of them at their homes.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Celebrities such as Miley Cyrus and Kanye West have voiced their dissatisfaction with paparazzi drones invading their private property. In 2014,\u00a0Miley Cyrus<\/a>\u00a0posted a video on Instagram of a paparazzi drone flying above her backyard.\u00a0Kanye West<\/a>\u00a0expressed fear for his family\u2019s safety, concerned that an inexperienced drone operator could cause physical injury to his young daughter, should the drone crash. However, privacy concerns regarding drones are not merely limited to celebrities. Reports of peeping drones hovering above Californians\u2019 homes and lingering near windows caused residents to\u00a0fear for their privacy<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Although the text does not specifically use the term \u201cdrone,\u201d Section 1708.8(a) was\u00a0amended<\/a>\u00a0to include the phrase \u201cphysically invade the privacy of the plaintiff,\u201d extending liability to those who fly drones equipped with visual or audio surveillance measures to capture footage on private property. Before the bill\u2019s passage, Californians were afforded protection in areas such as their backyard, where they possessed a reasonable expectation of privacy.\u00a0\u00a0The new legislation simply extends this reasonable expectation of privacy to the overhead sky,\u00a0effectively prohibiting<\/a>\u00a0\u201cthe use of drones to cross over fences, bypass gates and travel into private sanctuaries in order to peer into windows, capture goings on and otherwise spy\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n

The final bill\u2019s text is indicative of\u00a0legislators\u2019 intent<\/a>\u00a0to protect residents\u2019 privacy, without being restricted to a specific technology; instead generally prohibiting devices that \u201ccapture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff\u2026\u201d Violators of the bill will be liable for up to three times the amount of any general and special damages proximately caused by the invasion of privacy. Additionally, punitive damages may be awarded in certain circumstances, and if the privacy invasion was \u201cfor a commercial purpose,\u201d such profits must be disgorged to the plaintiff as restitution. Violators are also subject to a civil fine ranging from $5,000 to $50,000.<\/p>\n

The new legislation is in harmony with the\u00a0existing landscape of privacy<\/a>\u00a0in California, as the state is frequently the nation\u2019s forerunner for privacy and data protection laws. For instance, California was one of the first states to include an express right to privacy in the state\u2019s constitution, as well as the first state to enact data breach notification legislation.<\/p>\n

While Governor Jerry Brown approved the new restriction on paparazzi drones, he has not supported other legislative attempts to place restrictions on the use of drones. The Governor\u00a0previously rejected<\/a>\u00a0three drone-related bills that would have prohibited private citizens from flying drones over locations such as schools, wildfires, and prisons. Moreover, the Governor also vetoed legislation creating a trespassing violation when an individual flies a drone over another\u2019s property without permission. In his\u00a0veto message<\/a>, Brown opined that such bill would create unnecessary new crimes. \u201c[W]hile well-intentioned, [Senate Bill 142] could expose the occasional hobbyist and the FAA-approved commercial user alike to burdensome litigation and new causes of action.\u201d<\/p>\n

As the Federal Aviation Administration\u00a0predicts<\/a>\u00a0that at least 30,000 drones will be flying overhead from 2014 \u2013 2019, restrictions are necessary to ensure that drone operators are not using the devices to snoop on individuals and invade their privacy, despite existing law. California\u2019s amended Civil Code Section 1708.8 represents a narrowly tailored step in the right direction, balancing the privacy interests of Californians while permitting the use of new technology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Amended legislation\u00a0recently passed in California expanded the definition of \u201cphysical invasion of privacy\u201d to prohibit paparazzi drones from trespassing on private property to obtain photographs or video footage of individuals. Under the updated California Civil Code Section 1708.8(a), \u201c[a] person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3788,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3787"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3787"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3787\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7265,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3787\/revisions\/7265"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3788"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3787"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3787"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}