[opello]

But the footage isn't "real property" as I understand it. The only thing the theft does is deprive the company from the opportunity to sell the footage themselves, and it's not exactly like selling security camera footage is the business model of many/any(?) company.

If the harm is that the company couldn't sell the footage itself, the remedy should be giving the company the money from the sale.

[otterley]

It’s a common misconception that “property” relates to physical objects (chattel) or land (real property). But that’s an incorrect and limited understanding. More generally, it’s about the right to control something and exclude others from using it.

Copyright, for example, is what’s known as “intellectual property.” Its rights protect intangible things, namely, artistic expressions.

[opello]

I think I did understand that, specifically contrasting real property and intellectual property, but maybe wrongfully implied that theft could only apply to real property.

However, is there any argument for security camera footage like this instance to be considered a trade secret? Isn't that the only type of intellectual property it might be? It seems like if the business wasn't planning to derive economic value from the sale of the security camera footage (which seems like a generally safe assumption) it would fail to acquire trade secret protections.

[otterley]

I am an attorney but this is not legal advice.

The elements of trade secret misappropriation are: 1/the existence of a trade secret, 2/ acquisition of that secret through improper means, and 3/ use or disclosure of the trade secret without consent.

I’m honestly uncertain as to whether security camera footage of an airport’s traffic area fits the definition of a trade secret. For example, 18 USC 1831 defines a trade secret as “all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public.”

Given that anyone in the immediate vicinity could record the incident - for example, anyone who happens to be in a nearby aircraft - it sounds absurd that to try to classify this information as a secret. These aren’t recordings of the airport’s or FAA’s own activities, and neither the airport nor the FAA derives any business value from any footage they might possess related to the incident. Both of these are public entities anyway.

[opello]

I will do my best to try to reconcile "honestly uncertain" and "sounds absurd." :)

I'm sure it would be a feat of legal imagination to construct such an argument. It would probably be an interesting, if not also incredibly frustrating, read.