They never say "Here's a view from a drone."
They say, instead, "Here's a view (of the accident) from above..."

Any thoughts on this?

Our news doesn't event try to hide it....

http://fox17online.com/2015/01/2 ... ake-michigan-shore/

I think there are a lot of people who are just deciding to use it for commercial purposed and don't know or care that the FAA says not to.

dunno.  i think most of the news aerials (at least around me) are from actual helicopters.  however, i have defn seen footage on HGTV and other real estate television shows that clearly were NOT helicopters and were way higher heights than fixed arm video cranes.  and i say not helis because it went up from ground level like in the back yard of a beachfront home all the way up to 100-200ft.  after watching as many drone vods as i have, it clearly looked like drone footage to me.

I saw footage of Niagara Falls frozen over on NBC News and they said the video was from a drone. But they didn't say who shot the footage or if someone was paid for the video. Link

I've already decided that if I hear of anything newsworthy I will be heading straight that way and going all 'Nightcrawler' on it!

Moto70 Posted at 2015-2-24 06:36
I've already decided that if I hear of anything newsworthy I will be heading straight that way and g ...

LOL---me too.
I guess giving your drone footage (free of charge) to the local news station wouldn't violate any laws...

birdfolk5555 Posted at 2015-2-24 07:23
LOL---me too.
I guess giving your drone footage (free of charge) to the local news station wouldn' ...

That is the same way real estate agents do it,  They give the free video to the real estate agency and the agency will pay to edit the video.  Perfectly legal to edit.

Observer 2 Posted at 2015-2-24 07:53
That is the same way real estate agents do it,  They give the free video to the real estate agency ...

I don't know about that, I'm not convinced that's correct regardless of the opinion of some here.
Why? Because the wording is that a UAV must not be used "for commercial purposes" not "to make the owner money". To me  (and this is of course only my opinion and that of a couple of lawyers I have asked) this covers any use where there is commercial gain involved. To use the real estate example the realator will be using the footage to sell a property and that is a commercial use of the footage. See where I'm coming from?

In my experience skirting laws in the manner some here have been suggesting is asking for trouble if the statuary authority wants to make somethig of it. So far they have not because what laws have been in existance have been in some legal doubt. When the new regs take force that will change real fast.

Image how much crap you could be in if there was an accident during such disputed use and someone decided to litergate on the basis of illegal use. It would then all be down to the judge's interpertation of "commercial" and if her were to agree with my reading of it you couold be up for millions you don't have.

I don't think the true meaning of "commercial" in this instance will be established untill it's tested in a court of law and you do not want to be the test case!

There is a new reality type show on History channel called "Legend of Superstition Mountains" about a supposed gold stash, and some characters searching for it.  I noticed quite a few aerial shots and kind of suspected a multi-copter.

Then sure enough at one point in a moving aerial, I saw the shadow of what I'm certain was a Phantom.  Pretty good shots I might add.

This guy was taken to court for working for the real estate and he won.  He is still doing it.



He just charged to edit the banks film after he turned the video over to them for free.

I suppose you could also give away your aerial photos for free, and just charge the property owners for gas money and additional expenses...

I could hang a flyer at the local grocery store: Aerial Photos---FREE!  LOL

direct or indirect gains is still 'for commercial purposes'.  there are 1000 things that businesses do EVERY DAY that dont directly make them money.  that doesnt mean they are not 'for commercial purposes'.  fantasies aside of course for all those out there looking through rose colored glasses.

How on earth can anybody declare 'indirect gains' to be commercial use?

I make signs, banners, vehicle graphics, etc so you are telling me that if people hear about me through my hobby and they decide to use me to have their shopfront rebranded I am using my drone commercially? What utter nonsense...

I have already said that I will make people here skins once I have the template set-up, is that also 'indirect gains' if the person buying a skin happens to see one of my videos/photos?

moto, it is pretty simple.  it is the FLYING of the drone that is referencing indirect gains not the actual product itself.  DJI sells them which is DIRECT GAINS.  so the FAA isnt suggesting that any business that is associate with drones is illegal (selling them, skins, attachments, accessories, etc).  but if you fly them and the act of flying them causes an indirect gain then that is what it is talking about.

and it isnt a new concept.  as i said above, businesses around the world do things EVERY DAY that dont directly give them revenue but they further their business.  the term 'commercial use' was around DECADES before drones.  so again this isnt a new idea.   if you are using the FLIGHT of your phantom to further your business, then that is commercial use.  i think it is equally utter nonsense for someone to think that 'commercial use' is only MONEY EXCHANGE.  

Here is an example of one definition (although this is a UK reference but to me applies in spirit overall):

One of the most basic restrictions you'll see with content covered by a Creative Commons license is the non-commercial clause.

This is a legal definition, so it is simple enough to find out exactly what that means. Well, simple in one sense. The definition of commercial use is broad, covering more than just obvious 'profit-making' uses. In practise, the term is equivalent to income-generating use of any kind, whether direct or indirect. If you use content for general research, even if not for any specific purpose, and you or your organisation generates income, that counts as commercial use. So does using content for pro-bono work (from the Latin pro bono publico, meaning 'for the public good', or working for free), if it also enhances your reputation or leads to income-generating work in any way whatsoever.

Basically, if there's as much as a sniff of commercial interest in what you're doing then it counts as commercial use. There's also no such thing as fair use in commercial contexts any more. A European Union directive passed in 2001 was finally made law in Britain in October 2003, and this put paid to the 'fair use' clause which allowed 'small' portions of a work to be copied for commercially-related purposes. This is still allowed for non-commercial work. Further information can be found in the British Library's copyright FAQ, found at www.bl.uk/services/information/copyrightfaq.html.

Further examples.
My office has a coffee maker, I don't charge the staff for coffee but it's use is still commercial. We have an office runabout that's used to go to the post offic, supply store etc. It's use does not directly generate revenue but it's a commercail vehicle. Using a UAV is even more so, it's comparable to the car you use to get to a job or the cherry picker you may have previously used to get high angle shots. Whether or not you caharge for it's use or even for the photos you take if you make money out of something connected to it's use then it's a tool used to generate income (in this case the money from editing those shots) and thus you are using it for commercial gain.

So if I film a video in the US  for a friend and give him a copy and he then decides he likes it that much he gives it to somebody else to edit into a video to showcase his company would you say that this is still commercial use?

yes, it is.  however, your friend would be the one taking the risk of getting fined, not you.  it isnt the person doing it at risk, it is the commercial entity that uses it, even if that use came from 5 hand-me-downs across 5 people that were not related to the business.

I specifically asked about that scenario because the exact same thing came up on the Facebook page on Sunday, the difference being that the person asking the question called the FAA the following day (it seemed split 50/50 on those saying he'd be fine and those saying he wouldn't be) and the FAA told him that is fine and his part wouldn't be classed as commercial use.

Really I don't think the FAA has time to investigate every person flying a drone and using it for commercial uses but I think they keep the rule in their back pocket in case something happens they have some recourse.

Actually I'm not so sure about that scenario. It depends on the wording on the regs but as I understand it the regs prevent commercial use of the UAV itself not any resulting footage. If you (the owner and operator of the UAV) don't make any money out of it has the UAV itself been used commercially is the question that would be debated by the court. This is getting beyond my limited paralegal training now and comes down to a point of law and I'm not familier with how a US court would see the matter.

EDIT: I see from the post above the FAA tends to agree with me here

"...the regs prevent commercial use of the UAV itself not any resulting footage..."

That is exactly it and that is what the FAA told him. Was he being paid for it in any way at all (with money or in kind) and he said he wasn't, it was for a friend who wanted him to film something for him, they deemed this to be purely him taking part in his hobby and advised him that by doing so he was not entering into any 'commercial use' of his drone.

The simple fact is that if you DO NOT get paid for using your drone then what you are doing isn't commercial, this isn't an interpretation but the advice given by the FAA themselves. In the UK the simple way to not worry about any of this though is to get a CAA annual permission which is around £120 though I am not sure how much the evaluation companies charge (currently there are only 4 that are approved)...

Moto70 Posted at 2015-2-25 02:53
"...the regs prevent commercial use of the UAV itself not any resulting footage..."

That is exactly ...

What REALLY makes no sense about the whole thing is...  I take a pic with my Phantom and hang it on my wall, that's legal.  Somebody comes over, loves the picture and wants to buy it from me for ten bucks and *POOF*, the same exact picture is now illegal.

Let's take it a step further.  If I fly a kite and attach a camera to it and sell the resulting photos, is THAT illegal?  The kite is, after all, a UAV.  Would the same apply if I strap a camera to a brick and throw it up in the air?

It's all pretty silly.  I think even the FAA, in general, thinks so, too based on their proposal last week.

Let's take it a step further.  If I fly a kite and attach a camera to it and sell the resulting photos, is THAT illegal?  The kite is, after all, a UAV.  Would the same apply if I strap a camera to a brick and throw it up in the air?

The kite? Yes.
The brick, well technically yes but any judge or jury would have needed to had a very bad day to get you on that one IMO. It all comes down to legal arguement on points of law which is all very interesting until you are the poor bugger in the dock.

the same exact picture is now illegal.

As I read it no it's not. It's not the capture (or use) of an image that's illegal it's the use of a UAV to aid and assist in that capture. If these cases end up coming up in court that is going to be an important differential.