Release needed when recording video from quadcopter?

As some of you know, I just gave in and bought one of those DJI Phantoms.  I had my first encounter of a not so friendly person today telling me that he could sue me because I was recording video and I didn't have their permission.  Mind you, I was in a public park flying my "bug" (that's what I call it) I would guess 200-300 feet up.  I told the couple they would be so tiny because the camera was so high up. 

Quadcopter laws are so new, when you are recording video or taking photos from a elevation of let's say 300 feet.  Do you need to get permission from anyone in order to post that video on YouTube?  

How would you even know who is in it, till you view it?  I doubt it.  

I doubt that one would be needed

This has nothing to do with video, and your victim was mistaken.

In the US there is no assumption of privacy when in a public space. You are free to capture anything and everything you can see from a public location, providing you do not use "special" equipment (which may include a really long lens). You do not need a release to capture someone's image, nor do you need one to see your work containing their image. You might need one to resell for commercial purposes (stock footage, e.g.) but I am not sure about how that works.

Whether it's wise to take photographs in public is another issue, especially with children.

How you handle(d) this is probably the biggest challenge you faced. Some folks don't understand reason or the law. And then there's the issue of ignorant police officers should someone try to give you a very hard time.

All that said, the law was on your side.

Absolutley not.  At least not now you don't.  Knowing history, most likely a series of idiots will cause law makers to add some rediculous laws for flying these.  

My husband just got one of these, I'm sure he'd be interested in this thread.  The last couple weeks I've been watching all these nutty video's he has shared with me of people flying and some doing silly things with these drones.  While some are making just amazing looking videos.  

This might be too new for there to be a lot of information yet on usage. You could go to http://asmp.org or try PPA for info. on releases. Usually you need a model or property release for retail or commercial use of photos. For editorial use such as newspapers usually a release isn't needed but a publication may request one. Typically the guideline is if the subject is recognizable.

I would think a park is public but it depends on who owns the property. Some places (museums, arboretums, sports venues etc.) limit cameras/lenses or require fees or permits for photographers to use the property for a photo shoot, or to be able to use images of the property. In this case I don't think people in a public park would have an expectation of privacy any more than if a news crew showed up. However people would know the purpose of a news crew, they don't know you or why you're recording video or what you intend to do with it so that seems to be why people have concerns about it. 

There were already some guidelines in place and they're being redeveloped by the FAA. These are considered to be unmanned aircraft. From what I've read using them is allowed as a hobby but not for commercial use; they need to be in sight of the person operating it and within a certain number of feet etc. I don't know if you'll be held responsible if it crashes and injures someone or damages something, but if it has GPS and is recording video it can be tracked back. Apparently there will be new rules that will require training and possibly a license to operate.

It may be worth pointing out, also, that the issue of videography of folks in a public location is completely separate from the issue of operating a drone. The two really have nothing to do with one another.

That's true, there seems to be more involved in using a UAV for videography than using a camera.

garyrhook wrote: It may be worth pointing out, also, that the issue of videography of folks in a public location is completely separate from the issue of operating a drone. The two really have nothing to do with one another.

Not trying to be argumentative, but how do you see it that way?  The camera is part of the drone. 

Ryan711 wrote:

garyrhook wrote: It may be worth pointing out, also, that the issue of videography of folks in a public location is completely separate from the issue of operating a drone. The two really have nothing to do with one another.

Not trying to be argumentative, but how do you see it that way?  The camera is part of the drone. 

The issue is videography. Who says the video camera has to be airborne? A handheld videocam also captures images of folks in a public location, to which some ignorant and thoughtless people might take exception. What's the copter got to do with that?

Nothing. Just because some idiot in a park says so, doesn't make it so. People are remarkably adept at conflating issues, which only leads to obfuscation and rabbit trails. I prefer to stay on subject.

Big thanks everyone, I'm glad I posted this!