From Poynter.org:
Last Wednesday, The (Spokane, Wash.) Spokesman-Review published a minute-long, aerial video of a local event [screenshot shown above].
On Thursday, Jesse Tinsley, the photographer who used an unmanned camera ship to record the video from 30 feet off the ground, said it was “not illegal, but currently in a gray area.”
Au contraire, said the Federal Aviation Administration on Monday.
“There is no gray area,” said FAA spokesperson Les Dorr.
Hobbyists are allowed to use small, radio-controlled crafts under specific guidelines, but “if you’re using it for any sort of commercial purposes, including journalism, that’s not allowed,” he added.
The FAA generally contacts transgressors and requests them to cease their activities, rather than penalizing them (unless they’re operating aerial vehicles in a reckless manner, in which case sanctions could be meted out).“Our main goal is to get them to stop,” Dorr said. “Most of the time people are cooperative.”
(Two drone journalism programs received cease-and-desist letters from the FAA in July.)
Acknowledging the confusion about the operation of unmanned aircraft systems, Dorr said that soon-to-be-released FAA guidelines about small crafts should make it “much clearer…what you can do and what you can’t do.”
He also acknowledged the appeal for journalists in using drones to report some stories.
“It’s an attractive technology for journalists, and people would like to be able to use it,” Dorr said. “That said, the FAA is responsible for the safety of the air space. And as much as we’d like to encourage them, we can’t let them do it as long as there are no rules in place.”
Comments
hmm...
this would seem to be the right path from a legal standpoint.. and would invalidate state laws against same with the same decision.. and is grounded in firm constitutional case law and not the unholy labyrinth that is the FAA regulations(which is a LOT harder to attack front on), the photo jounalism issue neatly sidesteps this for 1st amendment protected speech(jounalism).
IANAL
HZL
Hmm... it would seem the answer here for the journalism ONLY usage of drones is that any attempt to prevent their use in news gathering would appear to butt up squarely against first amendment case law.
IANAL and all the usual verbiage
HZL
Class action anyone...? ;)
When is someone in the US going to file against the FAA for restraint of trade? The remit of the FAA is the safety and promotion of aviation - nothing to do with whether it's commercial or not. If they can show that their processes are inclusive of UAV/UAS operation, then they'd obviously win the case, but I'd put money on the balance of probabilities being against them...
At some point, somebody is gonna stand up and point out the First Amendment and declare they are expressing them selves via their Photographic Art, and the FAA is stepping on their right to free speech. People are going to push back eventually. Go Trappy!
I'll bet Mr Pirker's lawyer would like to see that letter too, Gary!
Wow, I would like to see a letter from the FAA that advocates that, I don't disbelieve you Rob BTW. It would be a great thing to try and get some paperwork in one place that told a fuller story.
Whatever happens if things stay on track its 2017 until the first two civil companies are selected for the first trials. I can't believe that will happen BTW. I think in three years time the FAA will have to have something in place for say sub 7kg airframes or get out of the way. The 55lbs number will become restrictive as I think you should have something different in place for 55lbs, that's lots of lump flying compared to 5.5lbs or even .55lbs. Again, just adopt overseas rules. As most folks know Australia is already thinking of just having operators sign a register that basically says they have read airlaw and lets the authority know they are there for sub 2kg.
Its the DOD vendors that are pulling the strings over there. I think I am right in saying though that DJI alone has sold more "aircraft" in the USA than the US military owns of all sizes.
Actually Gary, I know for a fact that some local offices were telling people that all commercial use was completely legal. Even the FAA internally couldn't get the message straight.
The community has to stop being in denial.
There has not been any gray area since February 13th 2007. Anyone that has told you that or inferred is wrong. With the law it all comes down to intent.
Forget the farming or another hobby allowed practice on private property e.g. farmers, ranchers et al. The FAA has backpedaled like I knew they would. If the intent is business it it against FAA policy.
Time to stand up for your rights!
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next