There is no point at which the state is willing to say "ok, nevermind" in response to a citizen refusing to consent to punishment for violating a law. Threat of force will be escalated until you comply or die. Sure, you'll be charged with other violations in the process so the consequence will be justified within the legal system, and scenarios presented so you'll have no room for error and thus can be blamed, but in the end if you absolutely refuse to comply with punishment for so little as jaywalking you'll find yourself deceased.
All laws should be enacted with asking whether such a grave (albeit extreme) consequence is preferable over not enacting that law. Prohibition of arial photography isn't.
Refusing to comply with a law and refusing to comply with its punishment are different things. For one, passive inaction suffices (see Gandhi). For the other, you must act, at some point violently. Since your moral stance hinges on your conflation of these distinct concepts, I cannot see how it is valid.
All laws should be enacted with asking whether such a grave (albeit extreme) consequence is preferable over not enacting that law. Prohibition of arial photography isn't.