This 1946 case has been unsuccessfully quoted many times and not yet determined by the courts or FAA to be applicable. I suspect quoting this ruling when calling the FAA to complain about a low flying plane, helicopter, balloon or drone would be met with less than satisfying response. "The drone police will be right there, sir." Maybe someone should bear the burden of taking a case specific to sUAS (drone) fear back to SCOTUS. BTW, the same FAA has defined that 400' and below is the navigable space for RC craft, in an effort to avoid mid-air conflicts between manned and unmanned craft.
Intent and commercial use is in the NC law. Trespass laws are written with actual presence on the property in mind. If someone wants a new or changed law, legislators are more than happy to listen. Shout very loud at the RC toy accusations of trespass. Unfortunately, most aUAS don't have microphones, only very wide angle cameras.
I am involved in all aspects of sUAS. It never ceases to amaze me how much non-drone people know and how important they think their outdoors activities might be to recreational drone operators taking pictures of the horizon. Most of the time people in our shots ruin the shot, not enhance it. We really don't care what you are doing, and BTW, you looks like ants in our video and pictures from 200 feet. I acknowledge and agree with a certain level of privacy on my own (and others) property, but some people take it to an unreasonable and unrealistic argument. That's why I agree that the level below a treeline is reasonable.
Yes, that's me ---- I think. Hard to tell. This is a shot at an altitude (about 30') and distance similar to being in your backyard. I see another CFF member, too. I'm writing down all those tag numbers.
View attachment 39684