Legality of Aerial Photography?

[RobertsUp]

Yes I know the topic has been discussed before. But I did some deeper study over the weekend and I'm bothered.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/145993-rc-aerials-illegal-says-faa.html

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130318/ARTICLES/130319522/1334/news?p=1&tc=pg

http://photographyforrealestate.net...nmanned-drones-doing-real-estate-photography/

I may be a noobie but I know that UAV's aren't toys and that I need to know all there is about regulations. Both FAA and FCC.

Any thoughts from the forum members?

- Rob

 

[DennyR]

I had a guy walk up to me at my local Akrotiri flying site and take a look at my FPV motor glider. He said WOW in my country (Israel) it is illegal to own such a device.

 

[Quantumlight]

Here in Sweden you are ok to film/photography and use fpv as long it is not commercial or you publish any video/poctures without permits both from Swedens version of FAA and military.

 

[Electro 2]

I concerned about this too. Everyone should be. The use of a remotely controlled aircraft for commercial purposes blows you out of the FAA recreational exemption, right up front. At present, technically, you would have to file for a use approval from the FAA. I'd guess your chances for approval of some sort of blanket area-of-operation would be low. That said, as we know many are doing this now and laws be damned. The above comments show this is prevelant in other countries, as well. I'd be curious to know if any of the U.S. operators have insurance or bonds ? A single incedent could result in a court case during which the fact that the actions of the defendant were actually illegal would most certainly come out. Would not work in your favor.

 

[Bartman]

show me the law where this is so and where unmanned digital image capture is defined by the FAA as commercial use of an aircraft.

 

[Dewster]

I had a guy walk up to me at my local Akrotiri flying site and take a look at my FPV motor glider. He said WOW in my country (Israel) it is illegal to own such a device.

I've seen a couple of videos on Youtube of guys flying DJI Naza and WKM craft in Israel.

 

[RobertsUp]

show me the law where this is so and where unmanned digital image capture is defined by the FAA as commercial use of an aircraft.

Bart of course there is no such law. The clampdown is aimed at anybody making money from AP/AV. Pressure is concentrated in the LA region where cinema union reps want to protect their aerial boom and jib and MR operators from competition. There's a lot of info in those links I posted. And their sublinks.

I'm concerned because I thought I might supplement my retirement income. Now I think that was always just a dream.

 

[sfpuk]

Quick question that i am trying to work out... Are you allowed to use a UAV on private property with owners permission for filming that will be part of a paid project, but the aerial part is not being paid for?

 

[Dewster]

Quick question that i am trying to work out... Are you allowed to use a UAV on private property with owners permission for filming that will be part of a paid project, but the aerial part is not being paid for?

Are you filming with the "Drone" and using the aerial imagery for commercial purpose? Are you just filming something about "drones" on private property. I think the gray area is commercial enterprises that use "drones" for commercial use. Private flyers doing a job here and there aren't making the news. It's established businesses or companies. Maybe this is too hot a topic for this forum and one for the FAA. You will only get multiple interpretations of unclear regulations/laws etc. I was recently told that putting a camera on a remote controlled craft an inch in length is against FAA regualtions if used for commercial purpose. I guess the question is what is commercial? Do you have to be a business owner for it to be considered commercial? What if I take pictures of nature and later decide to make it into a calendar or poster for sale. Is it considered commercial use??

To be honest I don't think the FAA knows what they are talking about. The establised companies using "drones" (multicopters) have received warning letters and told to stop the practice. I haven't heard of a private citizen getting scolded for flying a drone for "commercial use"....yet.


Fly safe.

 

[Dewster]

Bart of course there is no such law. The clampdown is aimed at anybody making money from AP/AV. Pressure is concentrated in the LA region where cinema union reps want to protect their aerial boom and jib and MR operators from competition. There's a lot of info in those links I posted. And their sublinks.

I'm concerned because I thought I might supplement my retirement income. Now I think that was always just a dream.

You know...theres a market for everyone. Not every film buget can afford to hire a helicopter, pilot , and camera crew for an aerial shot. I do believe that it was the film industry that applied pressure for the end of multi-rotor use in LA. Everything seems like it's in shambles right now. Lots of states are proposing laws to prohibit and restrict UAV/UAS/Drone use before the FAA can implement a plan for commercial use. I'm waiting for them to ban the use of kite photography.

 

[DucktileMedia]

If DJI can sell Phantoms at Costco and Toys r Us then it must be legal, right?

This whole industry will go a few ways.

1. it will be something we all forget about in a few years because we got tired of the legality issues.

2. the FAA comes up with some really expensive license that prevents most from doing this commercially.

3. it continues to be a problem and no law will satisfy everyone causing a huge stall in progress like every other bill/law that tries t get passed. In this case, we "don't ask don't tell" and be very careful and self monitor our own actions. In general this is always the best option for anything we do as people. But unfortunately this requires some basic level of intelligence that seems to lack in a high percentage of people.


I dont think it will ever be legal to fly in public areas. They cant just say "sure go ahead and fly your flying camera with spinning knives anywhere you want." In a way it's best that there is no law. They keep us scared enough to hopefully not do things that entail risk but allow us to film in closed course/permitted areas. Personally I wouldnt want to go outside and see 1 out of 10 kids flying a phantom on the beach. It's an easy thing to build and acquire and certainly achievable by the average person. It's just a matter of time before the neighborhood is littered with DJI's sky trash. And quite honestly at that point I would probably sell everything and be happy I have a day job.

No one ever hears about that Eric guy who flew SRH with the 7d anymore. he probably saw all these guys flooding the market and quit. Who knows.

 

[sfpuk]

Are you filming with the "Drone" and using the aerial imagery for commercial purpose? Are you just filming something about "drones" on private property. I think the gray area is commercial enterprises that use "drones" for commercial use. Private flyers doing a job here and there aren't making the news. It's established businesses or companies. Maybe this is too hot a topic for this forum and one for the FAA. You will only get multiple interpretations of unclear regulations/laws etc. I was recently told that putting a camera on a remote controlled craft an inch in length is against FAA regualtions if used for commercial purpose. I guess the question is what is commercial? Do you have to be a business owner for it to be considered commercial? What if I take pictures of nature and later decide to make it into a calendar or poster for sale. Is it considered commercial use??

To be honest I don't think the FAA knows what they are talking about. The establised companies using "drones" (multicopters) have received warning letters and told to stop the practice. I haven't heard of a private citizen getting scolded for flying a drone for "commercial use"....yet.


Fly safe.

Filming an aerial shot on private land free of charge for use in a paid commercial project paid for by the private land owner and filmed by someone who is self employed.

 

[mikeboland]

Has anyone really sat down and studied the regulations, I mean gone over every word.

Here in Australia if you ask CASA (our FAA) they will tell you that you need a commercial UAV operators license (about $8K to 15K).
But if you study the regs it clearly says that the CASA regs are not applicable if:
you are flying in uncontrolled airspace
you are not flying over a populated area
you are flying over private property with permission
and you are under 400ft

You only find this out if you carefully read the regs, as it is one little clause that is very easy to miss (hmm...)
You will not find this out by asking CASA.

 

[dazzab]

Has anyone really sat down and studied the regulations, I mean gone over every word.
You only find this out if you carefully read the regs, as it is one little clause that is very easy to miss (hmm...)
You will not find this out by asking CASA.

That clause does not exempt you from the rules in section 101 of the safety regulations. If you don't believe me then I'll send you a copy of the letter I was sent from CASA warning me that videos I had posted on YouTube indicated that I was not aware of the regulations. It also mentioned the cost of fines for such breeches which were in the order of $5,000 per incident.

I phoned them to discuss the letter and it was quite interesting. The information I was given was in direct conflict with what is published on their web site. When I mentioned this I was told that I was being given the information directly from the safety officer and that was what counted.

I'm in the process of having a lawyer respond to their letter. Even though they appear to be doing interesting work to sort out complex issues, IMHO they are very difficult to communicate with.

 

[Dewster]

Filming an aerial shot on private land free of charge for use in a paid commercial project paid for by the private land owner and filmed by someone who is self employed.

.

That sounds legal to me.

 

[Dewster]

If DJI can sell Phantoms at Costco and Toys r Us then it must be legal, right?

This whole industry will go a few ways.

1. it will be something we all forget about in a few years because we got tired of the legality issues.

2. the FAA comes up with some really expensive license that prevents most from doing this commercially.

3. it continues to be a problem and no law will satisfy everyone causing a huge stall in progress like every other bill/law that tries t get passed. In this case, we "don't ask don't tell" and be very careful and self monitor our own actions. In general this is always the best option for anything we do as people. But unfortunately this requires some basic level of intelligence that seems to lack in a high percentage of people.


I dont think it will ever be legal to fly in public areas. They cant just say "sure go ahead and fly your flying camera with spinning knives anywhere you want." In a way it's best that there is no law. They keep us scared enough to hopefully not do things that entail risk but allow us to film in closed course/permitted areas. Personally I wouldnt want to go outside and see 1 out of 10 kids flying a phantom on the beach. It's an easy thing to build and acquire and certainly achievable by the average person. It's just a matter of time before the neighborhood is littered with DJI's sky trash. And quite honestly at that point I would probably sell everything and be happy I have a day job.

No one ever hears about that Eric guy who flew SRH with the 7d anymore. he probably saw all these guys flooding the market and quit. Who knows.

1. Agreed. These multi-copters will fade from the news as more and more of them hit the skies and we see them on toy shelves in department stores.

2. Agreed I'm certain licensing, proof of insurance, flight worthiness test for aircraft will be expensive. It would be nice if the FAA allowed commercial use of drones if they were under a certain weight class with out the heavy restrictions.

 

[DennyR]

Fact is that no aviation authority really gives a dam unless they can make some money from it.

 

[RobertsUp]

There's a lot of people posting on the NAB 2013 Thread. How many of those posters know their business is presently illegal?

 

[Dewster]

There's a lot of people posting on the NAB 2013 Thread. How many of those posters know their business is presently illegal?

how many care?

 

[dazzab]

There's a lot of people posting on the NAB 2013 Thread. How many of those posters know their business is presently illegal?

Well, if they don't know the legislation that applies to their business activities then they aren't very good at their business now are they? I'd imagine they all know but don't care. However, others have been shut down so why make such an investment if it's all at risk?

At least here in Aus our federal authority is looking at how to maintain safety without shutting us all down. And it's perfectly legal to fly UAVs for video production here if you are willing to pay for the certification and insurance. At the moment that's about $23,000. We also have a group of certified businesses that appear to be working to make sure their investment isn't wasted by allowing others to get in cheaply. It's interesting times downunder. Stay tuned.