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
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...
Jesse didn't fly the drone directly over the people, so how's that reckless!? Jesse paid for the drone himself and didn't sell the image to the paper, so how's that profiting? How's this any different from RC airplanes or Helicopters with cameras used for TV commercials or real estate? If they are going to use the "for profit" lame excuse, then they should be a lot more diligent about going after those people that profit everyday from this tech. I know this can be a complicated issue, but it partially sounds like sour apples to me. They didn't have their crap together enough to foresee a burgeoning industry that could be very profitable.Like the typical bully, if it's not their idea, it's a bad idea. Set up some clear cut rules and regulations, publish them on a public website, make the hobbyist get some form of insurance and punish the idiots, not the conscientious hobbyist or pro!
Here in the UK, both BBC and Sky use drones.....
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!
Couple of things that seem to have not been mentioned...
The guy who made the video is employed by the newspaper, but was off-duty when he made the video in question.
The video was posted on the newspaper's blog site by the guy who made the video, available for anyone to view without a subscription, but there are still border advertisements.
Gray? Black and White? whatever, the FAA needs to get their job done on drone regs, pandora's box is open
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next