Honest Question:

Isn't the operation of any drone for commercial gain... illegal? (at least according to FAA)

As a filmmaker I absolutly LOVE what DJI is doing. But are the tools they make essentially illegal for us to use commercially?

Afterall even the Phantom 3 has a "Pro" version. This implies commercial use. Only a handful of licensed pilots in the U.S can legally charge to operate a Phantom for hire.

Thoughts?

LP

Maybe the Phantom footage is a "free" bonus incentive to go along with the "whole photography package".

That video is really dumb if you ask me. Because nobody wants this during their wedding:

Haha, thanks Rothgarr, that made me chuckle.

Flying a drone for commercial reasons indoors is not against the law by any means. Flying over government-controlled areas is where the issues come in; that includes parks, streets, airspace, etc.

Cacc Posted at 2015-5-14 21:41
Flying a drone for commercial reasons indoors is not against the law by any means. Flying over gover ...

As far as I understand FAA regs. Any operation of a drone for hire without FAA permission is illegal - indoors or out.

I think the fact that DJI is producing such a robust aerial photography platform will increase pressure on this issue (in a good way). But for now essentially the PRO version of the phantom is a product without a legal operating environment.

Rothgarr Posted at 2015-5-14 20:21
Maybe the Phantom footage is a "free" bonus incentive to go along with the "whole photography packag ...

That interpretation leaves it to the viewer to say that this must have been done for free.
But the name of one of the models is "Pro"...and pro means that it is commercial.

Trust me, I have been wracking my brain for a way to fit my P3P into my daily work. There really isn't a defensible way of adding it to my client work. If an "authority" compares my invoices, of projects without the P3P to invoices with...it will be clear that money is being made...

Silly, I know, but thats the law as it stands currently...so frustrating!

On top of that, most of my big clients (Fortune 1000) have corporate policies that do not permit them to hire aerial work (including drone) without a licensed pilot, because of the current FAA regs.

It's is a questionable subject for a video.  If the wedding photographer is charging for service...  It is a commercial activity.  I suppose he can apply for the license to fly for commercial production use.

Fulgerite Posted at 2015-5-14 22:17
It's is a questionable subject for a video.  If the wedding photographer is charging for service...  ...

By "Apply" are you referring to the FAA 333 exemption? All that the 333 does is permit a licensed airplane pilot to operate a drone without needing to file a flight plane for every flight.

Crrrrrazy, right?

Most of my friends who have a drone offer free aerial photos and video to their clients. They DO however charge for "editing".

I fly my Phantom as a hobby and seem to be getting interest in videos from friends that want to use some of my footage.
The same thing happens when I shoot stills of basketball games.  I had some photos of Oregon playing CAL on my web site and a credit union
wanted to use one of my non player photos.  The used at the rate of about $700 per year for 5 years.

So if I have stock video  footage of something I'll gladly license its use.

leblanc7513 Posted at 2015-5-14 23:05
Most of my friends who have a drone offer free aerial photos and video to their clients. They DO how ...

I'd genuinely like to know where the FAA comes down on "editing" of footage obtained from a free aerial shoot.

My corporate clients won't touch it.

lpoland Posted at 2015-5-14 22:57
By "Apply" are you referring to the FAA 333 exemption? All that the 333 does is permit a licensed  ...

I was talking about this announcement.  

http://www.wsj.com/articles/faa- ... g-drones-1411667976

I guess you can apply with the FCC to get "approved".

Rothgarr Posted at 2015-5-14 20:21
Maybe the Phantom footage is a "free" bonus incentive to go along with the "whole photography packag ...

This illustrates exactly my reaction when I saw that footage.  Surely the people who were in the room while they shot that footage were thinking and saying to each other: "This is stupid.  Who would want this at their wedding?"

lpoland Posted at 2015-5-14 22:03
As far as I understand FAA regs. Any operation of a drone for hire without FAA permission is illeg ...

Somewhere along the line perhaps some interpretation of the "rules" has been pretty loose. Recently someone made reference to "....according to FAA rules, it's illegal to fly a drone at night."

A thorough inspection of the rules (technically - *proposed* rules) reveals that absolutely nothing is said about night flying.

As for who can operate a drone for commercial purposes - in one of the recent Transformer movies, there are credits listed for Drone operators. Are they pilots, or just drone operators?

My biggest gripe is seeing over and over and over again everyone suggesting to limit flights to 400 feet max, be safe, be sensible, etc. Then a post (or a YouTube) pops up and some guy is bragging about taking his copter up to 5,000 feet.

I cannot imagine a wedding with a drone! everybody would be looking at it instead of the ceremony
bzzzz bzzzzz

aburkefl@gmail. Posted at 2015-5-15 02:51
Somewhere along the line perhaps some interpretation of the "rules" has been pretty loose. Recentl ...

I might be alone in this...but I would be fine with DJI placing policy guided software restrictions on the craft. This would keep regulators happy...and keep idiots from flying their drone into the engine of a passenger jet.

lpoland Posted at 2015-5-15 04:32
I might be alone in this...but I would be fine with DJI placing policy guided software restriction ...

At work years ago, what the FAA has been looking at is referred to as "the shotgun approach." Instead of going exclusively after the "culprit" you go after everybody in the conviction you'll ultimately nab the offender(s).

Although I agree with you about DJI instituting "limits," I think they should leave the law-abiders alone and throw the book at the offenders.

Karma is when some clown sends a quad over the football field during a game. The craft suddenly nose dives on the field and the 22 players on the field each get to stomp it endlessly until the officials stop laughing.

I checked in Canada , you need to have a minimum of 100,000 $ liability insurance , get a exemption from transport Canada  , print out the specifications for the drone and that is all you need to become a commercial drone operator ..

aburkefl@gmail. Posted at 2015-5-15 02:51
Somewhere along the line perhaps some interpretation of the "rules" has been pretty loose. Recentl ...

That Transformers movie was filmed with drones in Hong Kong or somewhere like that . I read that somewhere. Different flying rules there.

I am sitting and waiting for the clearance for commercial use. There are so many commercial opportunities for aerial photography. I'm foaming at the mouth over here!

Any talk of workarounds, technicalities, or loopholes is pretty much nonsense. It's really not that hard to understand: if you make ANY $$$ as a result from your use of a drone, you are breaking the (current) law.

People will try to justify it any way they like, but you get caught and stand before a judge and try and explain it like that and you'll get laughed at, fined, and if you hurt somebody, probably imprisoned

While I agree that having a drone buzzing around during a wedding is currently questionable, and will undoubtedly cause people to say "That is annoying", the same thing was probably said the first times a still photographer was used to photograph a wedding, or a videographer filmed a wedding...drones will get smaller, quieter, and more accepted, especially once people start seeing the extraordinary footage you can obtain with such a tool in the hands of a skilled operator and editor.

Now if only the powers-that-be in the regulatory and legislative segments of the US Government would get their collective and respective acts together...

It is a big world. Many places don't have any rules against commercial use of drones. I was watching Age of Ultron and noticed several scenes that appeared to be shot with a commercial drone (one of those big rigs with 8 or more props and a huge camera). All of those scenes were outside the USA like the one that appeared to be shot where they tear down old ships. Flying a commercial drone is a heck of a lot less expensive and safer to do than renting a helicopter in some third world country.

FAA has no jurisdiction over anything flown indoors.

Phantoms aren't only sold in the US....

Cacc Posted at 2015-5-14 21:41
Flying a drone for commercial reasons indoors is not against the law by any means. Flying over gover ...

Also, rules are not the same all over the world. DJI sells all over the world. Not every country have as silly rules as the FAA-rules (some have even sillier )

That spoof-video is hilarious and so true. Sadly the noise-issue is also a problem outside. The wedding-example really does oversell the Phantom   In fact the Phantom 3 does work inside and I've already used it indoors. But not at an event where people would notice and get annoyed with the noise.

-

Buy your DJI-gear, batteries, cases by using this link - it'll help me out