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
The ACLU representative at the Senate hearing this week asserted a First Amendment right to take photographs from a drone.
Casey, you're right in principle but there's something else to consider. As I understand it, the original and overriding mandate of the FAA is to maintain safety in the airspace. That mandate covers anything that flies. The FAA chose and continues to choose to largely (but not completely) exempt one group, namely hobbyists, from major regulation. That is why we are able to fly at all without a bunch of hassle. So, be careful what you wish for, because if too much is made of one group being treated differently the very easy and instantaneous and completely legal (I think) solution for the FAA might be to simply rescind or heavily modify the original policy and make all flight of any kind subject to licensing of both pilots and aircraft, and so on (notwithstanding the recent congressional prodding to exclude model flying from over-regulation). So yes, a double standard certainly exists, which is a good thing or we would be playing with rubber duckies.
As for organizing, IMHO the only hope for that would lie with forming a SIG within the AMA. It's taken decades for the AMA to get to a position of having the ear of at least some legislators and to try to parallel that instead of using it is probably futile at this late date.
FYI - http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/91-57.pdf
Comment by Casey Booey III just nowDelete Comment
I agree with you wholeheartedly, but based on my personal beliefs and demeanor disagree. We should not have to hide our hobby. As a photographer I shouldn't be denied the use of new tech or tech that's been in use in motion pictures and TV for years. I won't be denied the joy of my new creations when using this tech. Flying under the radar is just fine for many, but I am not the many. There is a double standard a foot and if the FAA wants a real say in how we, a legitimate arm of the RC community conduct our activities then they need to get off our asses, meet with some real multirotor hobbyist to learn about our uses and form an educated opinion of the multirotor community. They then need to get off their fat Bureaucratic Asses and either lay down some separate clear cut guidelines for us as Multirotor flyers, or see us as and treat us the same way they treat the RC Airplanes and Helis community. They also need to get their noses out of the for profit business. That is not in their scope if I've been told correctly. If they continue this biased unfair singling out, more and more people are simply going to get pissed enough to come out of the safety zone and start raising hell on forums and applying pressure on their local and regional statesmen and woman.
Oliver, you are a wise man indeed.
@ Casey
You're right on, but the "mistake the photographer made was with his mouth, not with his quad. STFU is a really good policy around slumbering bungling bureaucrats. Very few "regulators" ever lose their jobs by doing nothing, whereas actually regulating is guaranteed to generate some sort of risky backlash. But wave a red flag in their faces and they'll switch in a heartbeat from quietly chewing their cuds at the public trough to stampeding over your sorry ass. I'm not arguing for the status quo here, it's too late for that; but for the moment the wise multicopter pilot will (a) fly safely and without annoying people and (b) smile and talk about his/her hobby when compelled to say anything. Also keep in mind that there is no way to prove from a photograph or video alone exactly how it was created, it again takes an associated mouth to create a problem.
I have seen realtors using this to show properies on the internet. Does that count?
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...? ;)
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next