Photographer fined after drone crashes in Yellowstone

Mark Blue said:
I don't see a problem here as putting the video on YT and making little, if any money from it hardly qualifies as commercial use.
Click to expand...

Actually it does. It's pretty clear in the law. When you make money from a hobby, it's no longer a hobby. They've come down very clear on that and have taken people to court.
 
While the law is in a pretty gray area right now, there is a risk of getting the FAA's attention if there is any direct or indirect revenue from the video captured by the UAV. This would definitely include Youtube ad revenue. Some loopholes have been suggested like offering drone video as a "free add on" to a commercial photography package - but the drone video is being used as an enticement to close a commercial sale, so that's enough to raise the FAA's ire. YT ad revenue is about as direct compensation as you can get. Again, I don't think the FAA has much of a legal leg to stand on here, and the chances of any one person getting hit are low - but they could certainly make life miserable for someone who doesn't have the resources to pay for a good legal defense. If they wanted to make an example out of someone who couldn't afford to fight it, they could.
 
Check out this link on page 5. It appears the FAA tried to rattle Reed Timmer's cage over his use of a drone.

http://api.ning.com/files/mhrng7eeJ...A-IzoJ8e1r/20135943McKayResponsiveRecords.pdf

Those cease and desist letters are a more of a request for operators to obtain authorization than anything else. Since none of this is written into the law yet, their attempts to bring legal action on folks would be futile at best. The only thing they cite are "policy and guidance", which is a far cry from quoting specific sections of the CFR or FAR (Federal Aviation Regulations).

I hear you Dan about them making a person's life miserable, but if I had an RCMA it would be business as usual.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rdale said:
Whether you or I buy it doesn't matter :) They spell it out quite clearly, along with enforcement actions, in their July 15 bulletin. Pages B-8 to B-10. If money is involved, it's not a hobby.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.268.pdf
Click to expand...

On the point of commercial versus hobby or personal use I will concede that yes it is spelled out clearly how they define the two in the FAA's policy dated July 15. In the interest of those who are considering a Remote Control Model Aircraft (RCMA) for their chase gear setup, it's important to point out that their first attempt at enforcement was denied by an NTSB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) back in March. The FAA immediately appealed the decision and the fate of Mr. Raphael Pirker's $10,000 fine has not been adjudicated to date. For the record, here's the story regarding the matter at hand. Very cool video of the UVA campus by the way! If the appeal is denied the FAA will essentially be back to square one as far as future regulatory compliance and enforcement actions are concerned specific to RCMAs. It will be worth watching to see which direction it goes.

A good place for the FAA to start will be with that silly policy they developed dated July 15. I found this excerpt (from pages B8-B9) to be laughable and indicative of the fact that they do not yet have a handle on developing sound policies with clear directives for the intended audience (specific to this issue). If they weren't sure what Congress intended for the meaning of "hobby or recreational purposes", why didn't they seek clarification via Special Counsel from Congress versus turning to Merriam-Webster? :p

The statute requires model aircraft to be flown strictly for hobby or recreational purposes.Because the statute and its legislative history do not elaborate on the intended meaning of“hobby or recreational purposes,†we look to their ordinary meaning and also the FAA’s previous interpretations to understand the direction provided by Congress.3 A definition of “hobby†is a“pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation.†Merriam-WebsterDictionary, available at www.merriam-webster.com (last accessed June 9, 2014). A definition ofrecreation is “refreshment of strength and spirits after work; a means of refreshment ordiversion.†Id. These uses are consistent with the FAA’s 2007 policy on model aircraft in whichthe Agency stated model aircraft operating guidelines did not apply to “persons or companies forbusiness purposes.†See 72 FR at 6690.
Click to expand...

 
Maybe I'm just crazy, but why can't you take your boring drone footage of a shelf cloud and put it on YouTube without ads?
 
To kind of take off where Rob left off above, it seems to me that this conversation is far outweighing the impact/interest of drone footage to the world to begin with. I'd understand if this was regarding handheld/personal footage shot by a human, but all this drone/gopro stuff really is just hours and hours of zzzzz that takes hours and hours of editing to whittled down to something watchable in the 15-30 second range. Doesn't seem worth it for all this legislative red tape. Also, for as much as I've seen "there's no money in chasing" written, this seems like a lot of hassle for free use.
 
As a pretty big RC enthusiast, I splurged and bought a quadcopter this year (Phantom 1) with 2-axis gimbal (pitch and roll). As an amazingly fun toy hobby (I SAID HOBBY*, FAA), these drones are absolutely amazing. I can't believe the explosion in ability and innovation lately. As a storm chase tool, there are a lot of cons with a few pros. Watching a lot of the viral drone videos, I'm getting more and more worried about how ballsy people are getting. Just goading the FAA to crack down...

That said, I did have mine on all our chases this year and deployed several times. Most storm chase days are 99% unflyable due to winds (I don't fly over 15 MPH). We did get a couple lucky days right at the interface of the RFD and inflow where you can get a few minutes of calm air. If anyone's gonna get good drone tornado footage, I bet it'll be there.

My personal flying rules are to
1) Make sure the column of air around you is definitely Class G airspace (just one more hectic thing to check).
2) Don't fly over or around other chasers. NEVER accidently photobomb their timelapse or video.
3) Don't fly in higher than 15MPH winds, otherwise even with the 2D gimbal, you'll get enough yaw to make shots unusable.

And Shane is soooo right about raw drone footage. Painfully boring to sort through, edit down, and stabilize. It added so much time to my workflow this year.

*(Non-monetized Youtube account. Never going to see a dime from chasing. It's a vacation that "refreshes my strength and spirits" :))
 
For me it's not chase footage - it's damage footage. I'd love to send one up over farm fields when I'm in the boonies to get a better idea what happened. It would be nice to get a high vantage point too. Can't do any of them since I'm EM.
 
rdale said:
For me it's not chase footage - it's damage footage. I'd love to send one up over farm fields when I'm in the boonies to get a better idea what happened. It would be nice to get a high vantage point too.
Click to expand...

For that type application, it makes great sense. If there could be a way to implement this practice with some type of NWS sanction, that would be the future of damage assessment. Probably cheaper (and there's the selling point, powers-that-be) in the long run too than flying people up in actual planes/copters.
 
NWS is in the same boat - they can't sanction it because they are a government agency. FAA at its finest :)
 
I just saw the graphic that says NWS costs $3 per person per year... TWC's app is free - so I say we just shut down NWS and go with them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mark Blue
Drone footage from 04/30/2019
2
Replies
20
Views
6K
mschulz
mschulz
Back
Top