Actually, taking photos of military installations, including Area 51, from public airspace is not illegal as long as no restricted airspace boundaries are crossed and the photographer abides by FAA regulations. Aerial photography enthusiasts, aviation hobbyists, and journalists have legally documented sites like Groom Lake for decades. The key legal point is that the photos must be taken from locations where the public has the right to be; such as public land or airspace.

The government does impose some restrictions, like keeping the airspace above specific facilities classified as “restricted” (e.g., R-4808N for Area 51). Flying over these areas is illegal, but taking photos from outside the restricted airspace is not, as long as one doesn't knowingly photograph classified material (which may be challenging to determine). This is why photographers focus on general views or distant panoramas rather than zooming in on potentially classified details.

Furthermore, the law that most closely applies here, 18 U.S.C. § 795, does prohibit photographing or sketching defense installations with the intent to "violate national defense" but is generally applied to cases involving espionage or where someone had malicious intent. In this case, the website owner had been an aviation enthusiast, documenting the general development of the area for 25ish years; not a spy or someone deliberately trying to uncover secrets.

The Dreamland Resort website focused on aviation topics, not espionage, aliens, or classified information. Long-time enthusiasts of the scene, including engineers and aviation experts, engage in spotting and documenting for historical and technical purposes. If the authorities believed there was a genuine threat to national security, the owner would be facing charges rather than a drawn-out legal battle over seized property and damages. The fact that he isn’t in jail suggests his actions didn’t meet the threshold for illegal activity, such as espionage or compromising classified information. Had his aerial photography genuinely breached national security or violated restricted airspace laws, the authorities would have likely pursued prosecution. The government’s response—raiding his property and seizing equipment—appears more like overzealous enforcement than a reaction to any clear-cut criminal wrongdoing, indicating that his photography, while inconvenient for the military, wasn’t considered a serious enough breach to warrant charges.

Additionally, there are instances where the courts have upheld the right to photograph military installations from public areas. For example, the case of United States v. Maynard (2010) established that aerial surveillance or photography from public airspace is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment. The public’s right to document from legal vantage points is generally recognized.

It’s not about “spying” but rather a longstanding community of aviation enthusiasts documenting history, as is evident from decades of non-contentious activities prior to this case.