Attack on the drones, is shooting with a drone camera legal?

ChrisViperM

ChrisViperM

Active Member
I found this article in the News-Robot section on our forum but thought it might get more attention if posted in the General Discussion section:


http://www.suasnews.com/2013/07/23652/attack-on-the-drones-is-shooting-with-a-drone-camera-legal/



Boils down the situation with UAV in Amercia in a pretty compact form......


Best section in the article is this:

According to Les Dorr (a spokesperson for the FAA out of Washington, D.C.) “…if you are taking video for your own personal use (including YouTube) and you’re not going to do anything else with it, and you adhere to model aircraft guidelines, you’re okay…” He continues, “…you cannot sell the video, and you cannot take money for shooting the video.” Why? Because using unmanned aerial systems for commercial purposes is illegal.


What the hell of an explaination from an "expert"......now I know exactly why the pro's can't do what every hobbyist is allowed.


Best thing would be to to charge only for ground shots and give the aerials for free. Ground shots won't be cheap for sure.......:tennis:



Chris
 

CrashMaster

CrashMaster

Member
The US is 3 years behind the UK and Europe on this one..... Partly because no one wanted to address it and people insisted it was a 'god given right' to fly at 10,000 feet where ever they wanted.

People like 'Team Blacksheep' have done a lot of damage to the hobbyist and professionals APers, all in the name of pushing the boundaries.

It makes interesting reading the altering opinions now being heard from US members now the threat of a complete ban has become a reality.
 

S

Str8 Up

Member
To have flown in TV and film, the author doesn't know much about the history of unmanned aerial filming. Emmanuel Previnaire started Flying Cam back in the late 80's using modified Eyemo film cameras.
 

E

Electro 2

Member
"Best thing would be to to charge only for ground shots and give the aerials for free. Ground shots won't be cheap for sure."

This is a clever work-around. I've heard of a few and this is a gem. Wether it would stand up in a federal court is another matter.
 

S

stitch1615

Member
The first step might be to stop calling it a "DRONE".
It is no more than a radio controlled model aircraft.
Sophisticated yes. Carrying Hellfire missiles, No.
Photographing landscapes, our homes, ocean scenery, Yes.
Looking in Mrs. Jones window. No.
If you want to be a "drone pilot" go and join the US Air Force.
If you want to be a hobbyist, stop making yourself out to be something else.
Use your head and no one will even know what you are doing.
 

M

mikeboland

Member
If someone gives me a dollar to walk around with a balloon on a string with their business name on it (unmanned aerial system for commercial purposes) how long can the string be before I am fined by the FAA?
Everyone seems to be ignoring the 'sphere of influence' of the authorities.
Does the FAA own the airspace down to ground level?
Yes?
Then if I shoot footage while jumping into the air then I am in contravention of the regulations and can be fined?
Why hasn't anyone actually taken a close look at the regs, as I have in this country, and picked out the FAA's specific 'sphere of control'.
Here it is :
below 400ft
not in controlled airspace
not over populated areas
full permission of property flown over
In line of sight

The very same rules under which we operate model aircraft.
 

A

AboveAllAP

Member
Hi Mike

I am from Australia and we have very similar "Laws" however we do now have the ability (be it a very costly exercise) to become licensed "UAV" operators if we wish to do commercial work. But you do raise some vaild points and everyone should be aware of their rights.
 

EastCoastJib

EastCoastJib

Member
stitch1615 said:
The first step might be to stop calling it a "DRONE".
It is no more than a radio controlled model aircraft.
Sophisticated yes. Carrying Hellfire missiles, No.
Photographing landscapes, our homes, ocean scenery, Yes.
Looking in Mrs. Jones window. No.
If you want to be a "drone pilot" go and join the US Air Force.
If you want to be a hobbyist, stop making yourself out to be something else.
Use your head and no one will even know what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
 


S

stitch1615

Member
Simon Templar said:
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by CrashMaster
People like 'Team Blacksheep' have done a lot of damage to the hobbyist and professionals APers, all in the name of pushing the boundaries.


Just thought that could bear repeating.

....sT
Click to expand...

One day they will go thru the windshield of a Cessna or into the engine of a Biz Jet and it'll be game over for the hobby.
 

F

fj_montilla

Member
You can put a camera on a tripod. You can mount that camera on a crane for movie shots. You can fly a helicopter camera at low altitudes over a city, and traffic to get that perfect shot. It's perfectly legal to charge for any of these services.
Now, you can't mount a camera on a multirotor with failsafes, gps hold, that can be controlled with a radio with a typical 1.0 Km range, and charge for that expertise you may bring. I don't get it. How's this?
My guess is that the FAA sees this economic sector growing, and they need $$$. So get ready for that FAA "Commercial Drone Operator" License - ground school - written test and solo flight with your certified drone instructor. It just bothers me when government gets in our business. It seems that responsible flyers aren't capable of doing their best without some bureaucrat reminding them to fly safe.
Later guys... I'm off to fly my dangerous drone and take movies with my GoPro for my non commercial youtube page.
 

kloner

kloner

Aerial DP
they estimate when all this goes legit suppose to be an 80 billion dollar injection into the system the first year

TBS and hobbies have nothing to do with the suas commercialization. the government understands and has a name for two different sets of folks flying hobby models. You got ama community flyers and non community flyers. the ama set themselves apart from the backyard guys many moons ago to create another layer. no matter how you look at it, tbs created more of a buzz in this game than any other manufacturer and of stuff that actually works at a fair price. just like guns, some of us lay in defence, othrs take em on the offense. every thing in life has some way to abuse and make it look bad. Honestly i worry more about non community lighting fires hitting the ground than i am of any sort of mid air. we get a couple a year here in SD
 

F

fj_montilla

Member
kloner said:
they estimate when all this goes legit suppose to be an 80 billion dollar injection into the system the first year

TBS and hobbies have nothing to do with the suas commercialization. the government understands and has a name for two different sets of folks flying hobby models. You got ama community flyers and non community flyers. the ama set themselves apart from the backyard guys many moons ago to create another layer. no matter how you look at it, tbs created more of a buzz in this game than any other manufacturer and of stuff that actually works at a fair price. just like guns, some of us lay in defence, othrs take em on the offense. every thing in life has some way to abuse and make it look bad. Honestly i worry more about non community lighting fires hitting the ground than i am of any sort of mid air. we get a couple a year here in SD
Click to expand...

Don't worry, the FAA soon will require all "Commercial Drone Operators - Aerial Film Classification" to carry an chemical fire extinguisher on site, or face a fine ;)
Actually, not a bad idea (the extinguisher...not the fine).
 



kloner

kloner

Aerial DP
I fly in whats known as fire country. in order to fly at the ama club you have to take a lipo safety course, little test, then you get an e on your card. we had the fire department come out and show us how to extinguish one of them things, bottom line came to spend the extinguisher on the surroundings and let the lipo burn. I've had two of them go up at my house from large single rotor incidents, they burn till theres nothing left, nothing can put it out, covered in dirt was the best that could be done. the smoke is something fierce
 

CrashMaster

CrashMaster

Member
Kilby said:
Have you ever seen a Lipo fire? That is not a bad idea at all.
Click to expand...
No but the requirement for UK registration is to have a first aid kit and fire extinguisher when flying. They also recommend a Lipo safe for storage and transport, serately, charged and dishcharged lipos. Although an electric fire water is recommended because it will limit fire spread and short the power completely.
 

K

kallend

Member
Electro 2 said:
"Best thing would be to to charge only for ground shots and give the aerials for free. Ground shots won't be cheap for sure."

This is a clever work-around. I've heard of a few and this is a gem. Wether it would stand up in a federal court is another matter.
Click to expand...

Private pilots have been trying work arounds of a similar nature for decades, so they could do what actually requires a commercial certificate. FAA is well aware, and the administrative law judges are well aware too. The FAA always wins in court in cases like this.
 

J

jhardway

Member
The funny thing is the FAA category range for a UAV is from anything that sits in you hand up to the size of a 737, and that is it. Until they get that sorted in the books then we are in a range of complete anxiety

I think its a bitter sweet side, There are elements of safety, I understand where the FAA or some government entity should be involved. I do not necessarily agree with the idea that as a hobby-est we can fly these things pretty much where ever we can fly a kite, take all the video/photographs we would like and as soon as you put a commercial value to it then you are illegal. To me that is to ambiguous, you can't have it both ways. It is either illegal or not!!! and that is what I have problems with. It should be legal with a criteria.

I think the commercial value element is a way for the FAA to currently threaten to keep this evolution at bay. I get it.

After many years of research and finally taking the plunge into to the field roughly two years ago. I jumped into the multirotor world buying a x8 that was marketed as an aerial photography device. Even though I come from a fairly technical background there has been so many elements I can only say I have gotten my feet wet into. The camera, radio frequency, and aviation side I can say have collected a decent understanding of over the last 15 year by my work.

When getting my first craft, flying it, and taking some crashes in areas that was suitable for it I quickly learned that what I had going on was in no way safe to be around areas where it could damage anything other then itself , forget the commercial side. My point here is that I have seen many videos of the same copter in places where it was very risky of endangering others. The people using these copter where shooting videos for whatever purposes and to me, they are going to be the people which will bring a real bad image to the ones out here, taking the time and money to do this right. (DC Georgetown person shooting video and copter goes lost - nice wanted sign on a street pole).

I have now built my 5th copter and can say its been the best education into this field, I would rather have it this way then to buy a complete solution and have know idea of what is going on when something does not seem right.

This is the issue, you have people who never have had an RC copter, any RC experience, taking these off the shelf multirotors pushing the GoPro active button, then going around claiming to be Aerial Photographers ( that may be a little dramatic but somewhat true).

This is why I believe there should be some type of criteria for having a commercial ability. However I think its not fair to halt everyone from doing this stuff when you do not have anything in place to help develop the field going forward.

FAA, I am sure the FCC would have not problem tapping in to the FPV side of things, >100mtw.
 

D

DennyR

Active Member
Usually when the CAA bring a case to court they never loose. That is because they have the evidence, if they don't have that, then it never gets to court. Most full size pilots who get convicted of low flying etc. verbal themselves into a conviction. Investigators are usually retired police officers who know how to trick people into saying too much.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top