It seems to me that DJI have a vested interest in drone operators doing the right thing and behaving responsibly with their drones. If drone operators do the wrong thing and behave irresponsibly it will generate negative media coverage, resulting in governments bringing in stricter drone laws. Stricter drones laws will discourage people from buying drones. This must have an effect on DJI sales and their profitability. I think their No Fly Zones as part of the DJI Go App shows that they understand their shared responsibility that people do the right thing with their drones.


So when DJI announced they were starting a Facebook page I went to have a look at it (to follow and get my 1000 points also). On the DJI Facebook page there is a lovely photo of Sydney Harbour, obviously taken by a drone operator named Yiran An. Australia is a beautiful place, and Sydney Harbour is one of our most famous landmarks, known worldwide.

Sydney Harbour, and almost all surrounding areas – including Middle Harbour, White Bay, Rose Bay and the Parramatta River up to Ryde are all part of a restricted airspace due to the large number of helicopters and seaplanes that fly there. Now I am not saying that Yiran An has broken the law (as only qualified and licenced drone pilots, with specific permission per flight from Civil Aviation and Safety Authority (CASA) can fly in this space) but if this is not the case and I was this person I would be worried. It is known in Australia that CASA monitors drone footage uploaded to Youtube and other social media and prosecutes individuals who break our drone laws. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-10/drone-pilot-fined-after-jeffreys-stefanovic-wedding-flight/8694042)

Now I am not expecting that DJI should know the drone regulations of every country, or even if every photo or video that gets uploaded to their Facebook page complies with local regulations, but if they promote these photos and videos are they at least encouraging drone operators to do the wrong thing? If I didn't know any better, I could have seen this image and thought "that looks cool, I'm going out with my spark to take some shots of Sydney Harbour too".


What people do with their drones affects all of us, and as I stated earlier, the more people who do the wrong things with their drones will result in bad press and stricter regulations. This is our hobby - is this what we want? Do you agree that DJI should only be showing people using their drones responsibly? Or is this beyond their corporate responsibility?

< What people do with their drones affects all of us, and as I stated earlier, the more people who do the wrong things with their drones will result in bad press and stricter regulations. This is our hobby - is this what we want? Do you agree that DJI should only be showing people using their drones responsibly? Or is this beyond their corporate responsibility? >

I believe that every drone pilot is responsible for his or her behavior and action.  DJI has a responsibility of providing every pilot/DJI drone owner the information and regulation for safe flight.  DJI shouldn't take the responsibility of the user/pilot as this is beyond their corporate responsibility.  That being said, DJI should be providing each of us the regulations by country on their website.  That to me is their corporate responsibility.

Sparky_17 Posted at 2018-1-19 08:36
< What people do with their drones affects all of us, and as I stated earlier, the more people who do the wrong things with their drones will result in bad press and stricter regulations. This is our hobby - is this what we want? Do you agree that DJI should only be showing people using their drones responsibly? Or is this beyond their corporate responsibility? >

I believe that every drone pilot is responsible for his or her behavior and action.  DJI has a responsibility of providing every pilot/DJI drone owner the information and regulation for safe flight.  DJI shouldn't take the responsibility of the user/pilot as this is beyond their corporate responsibility.  That being said, DJI should be providing each of us the regulations by country on their website.  That to me is their corporate responsibility.

Yes,  I understand they can't control what people do with their drones. So why did they bother putting NFZ on the DJI app? And by posting this on their Facebook page aren't they kind of saying "This is okay"?  Just like if they posted drone footage of a busy airport?

This is the same as a lady wearing a short skirt and you saying she is asking to be sexually assaulted.
Poor logic and unecessary.

Greg Glasson Posted at 2018-1-19 08:42
Yes,  I understand they can't control what people do with their drones. So why did they bother putting NFZ on the DJI app? And by posting this on their Facebook page aren't they kind of saying "This is okay"?  Just like if they posted drone footage of a busy airport?

I guess at the end of the day, there is a fine line between acceptable and responsibility.

You can only please some of the people some of the time

Yes, I think they should watch what they post on their website.  Further more they should encourage a culture that promotes safe responsible flying.  Sadly, youtube clicks and instagram clicks require risky shots and videos that skirt or outright break laws.   

What do you think of this videoat 2:00?  His disregard of others by flying the Mavic around them ticked me off enough to write to my representatives to see if the FAA could do something to protect people from nuisance drone flying.  He could have hovered the drone out of the way until the few walkers and joggers passed. Or, flown it behind the beach, or over the water.  But nope, stitches on them don't hurt him much.  Or do we assume Mavics have never crashed or left their owners so safe flying is unnecessary?  

The drone mob just made fun of the lady's looks after his flights around her upset her.  Irrational fear of unshrouded lawn mower blades over her head?

Greg Glasson Posted at 2018-1-19 08:00
[view_image]

Firstly, DJI's responsibility will be to ensure that you, as their customer, are happy with the product you bought from them and that their products are safe. If I speed in my car it is not BMW's responsibility or legal position to tell me to stay within the speed limits - that is what we have police for. DJI do not police what you do with the product you own after purchasing it.
Secondly, there is something called 'permission' or 'waivers'. Qualified drone pilots may approach their national aviation authority and obtain permission to fly their UAV beyond what you are permitted to do - that is how movies are made... Don't be quick to be judge and jury and drawing upon your own conclusions without knowing all the facts behind the image...

Smolly Posted at 2018-1-19 08:59
This is the same as a lady wearing a short skirt and you saying she is asking to be sexually assaulted.
Poor logic and unecessary.

This is absolutely nothing like that at all.  Like at all.  The OP makes a really good point.  If there are going to have a facebook page then they need to be moderating it by taking down pictures of flights taken in illegal places.  You can not promote illegal behavior.  

Anyone who uses comic sans in their videos should not be allowed to pilot a drone.

DJI should be doing its due diligence in marketing and selling its products responsibly. That means doing at least the very most basic work of ensuring that customers of DJI aircraft have at least the bare minimum qualifications to actually use the products properly and safely. What they're doing instead is, unfortunately, what most large companies do - they sell to literally any Tom, Phil or Harry that comes along into BestBuy with the purchase price and do nothing more than that. Obviously you won't make nearly as much money vetting your customers for even basic proficiency with your product; its much more profitable to just sell to anyone who can write a check for it.

So, of course, when you don't exercise even the smallest responsibility with the sale of your product, you're guaranteed to have problems. That's why DJI has decided to lock down everything in their firmware; because of the scores and scores of unqualified people flying their aircraft, or trying to, and all the chaos that is happening as a result.

So the cart is before the horse on this "drone problem". True, unqualified persons are going to get hold of them regardless, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't do anything about it such that you have to cripple your product at the expense of your own legitimate customers. When you've gotten to that point, you definitely know something has gone wrong and it should be set right again.

Firehawk989 Posted at 2018-1-19 11:07
Anyone who uses comic sans in their videos should not be allowed to pilot a drone.

Hey that's my favorite font!

A CW Posted at 2018-1-19 10:02
Firstly, DJI's responsibility will be to ensure that you, as their customer, are happy with the product you bought from them and that their products are safe. If I speed in my car it is not BMW's responsibility or legal position to tell me to stay within the speed limits - that is what we have police for. DJI do not police what you do with the product you own after purchasing it.
Secondly, there is something called 'permission' or 'waivers'. Qualified drone pilots may approach their national aviation authority and obtain permission to fly their UAV beyond what you are permitted to do - that is how movies are made... Don't be quick to be judge and jury and drawing upon your own conclusions without knowing all the facts behind the image...

But you need a driver's license at least before you can even buy a car. In the US, you can't drive a new car off the lot without insurance either in every state in the union, I believe. That is, I don't know of a way to buy a new car in the states without actually knowing how to drive first.

That's what DJI should be doing - they should be at least ensuring that their customers can "drive a car". As it is, you don't have to have any qualifications whatsoever to buy a mavic pro or a P4P at BestBuy. Nobody will ask you anything at all; they'll just take your money and let you walk out the door with the copter.

So the liability on all this isn't just on the drone flying community, I'll put it that way......

That’s why they include a manual... it’s down to you to read it. And drone legislation differs from country to country. The responsibility ultimately rests with the consumer. You have a drone code and manual included with your drone - ignorance is not an excuse to break the law.

And legislation is being passed this year in my country to make passing a written test to fly drones for leisure purposes mandatory as part of a registration process that will be managed by the same organisation who are responsible for vehicle licensing in the UK - and no, that’s not DJI! They have a duty of care to ensure the product they sell is safe, compliant and fully functional in line with the regluations of the consumer act where sold however, they are not liabel for your conduct with that product - you are. If you break the law with your drone and end up in court it will not be a rep from DJI in the dock...

To be honest I am seeing a little storm in a tea cup here. The picture in question has been posted by DJI Australia on their official Facebook page. To me it seems very certain that they are familiar with the local flight restrictions and would not have posted this picture to flagship their page if they were not sure that it has been taken with the required permissions and by an obviously professional photographer who certainly knows the regulations as well. And since all this is happening in your own country you are the best placed to simply contact DJI Australia and get the answer from them directly, don't you think so?

Wachtberger Posted at 2018-1-19 13:31
To be honest I am seeing a little storm in a tea cup here. The picture in question has been posted by DJI Australia on their official Facebook page. To me it seems very certain that they are familiar with the local flight restrictions and would not have posted this picture to flagship their page if they were not sure that it has been taken with the required permissions and by an obviously professional photographer who certainly knows the regulations as well. And since all this is happenening in your own country you are the best placed to simply contact DJI Australia and get the answer from them directly, don't you think so?

"Little storm in a tea cup" - I really like that

Thank-you to those who have responded to my post, I want to know what others think about this issue, and I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this.
Before I purchased my first drone (a DJI Spark), I read through many forums, educated myself about rules and regulations, and watched many Youtube videos, some showing demonstrating responsible drone use, others showing irresponsible drone use and  considered the impact that these would have on the drone community. I particularly found the videos by Drone Valley informative and interesting such as , in one video I remember him saying that we are advocates for the profession and what we should do if we get approached by the general public about how we are using our drones, and he also discusses that we have a responsibility to ensure people are doing the right thing. If we see people flying drones irresponsibly, we should call them out about it as it has an impact on our community and affects how drone usage is perceived by the general community.
I think the analogy about driving on the roads is an interesting one, we all drive on the roads and their is a common understanding that it it's in everyone's interest to make sure our roads are being used safely and legally. If we see someone driving dangerously, do we ignore it or do we alert authorities because we can see an accident may occur? Do you do something because you have a social responsibility, you care about what might happen to others on the road? And I think that car manufacturers understand the responsibility on themselves to ensure that their products are being used safely also and promote safe road use.
I'm not sure about "the girl wearing a miniskirt is asking to be raped" analogy though...

A CW Posted at 2018-1-19 10:02
Firstly, DJI's responsibility will be to ensure that you, as their customer, are happy with the product you bought from them and that their products are safe. If I speed in my car it is not BMW's responsibility or legal position to tell me to stay within the speed limits - that is what we have police for. DJI do not police what you do with the product you own after purchasing it.
Secondly, there is something called 'permission' or 'waivers'. Qualified drone pilots may approach their national aviation authority and obtain permission to fly their UAV beyond what you are permitted to do - that is how movies are made... Don't be quick to be judge and jury and drawing upon your own conclusions without knowing all the facts behind the image...

In Australia our laws are quite clear. And waivers DO NOT override the law. That is why the guy making the wedding video got fined. The rules are clear, no flying within 30 metres (horizontally). It's that simple. If you crash drone into someone's head, it does not matter that they signed a waiver, you will still end up in court and be held responsible. This guy puts it really well...

Wachtberger Posted at 2018-1-19 13:31
To be honest I am seeing a little storm in a tea cup here. The picture in question has been posted by DJI Australia on their official Facebook page. To me it seems very certain that they are familiar with the local flight restrictions and would not have posted this picture to flagship their page if they were not sure that it has been taken with the required permissions and by an obviously professional photographer who certainly knows the regulations as well. And since all this is happening in your own country you are the best placed to simply contact DJI Australia and get the answer from them directly, don't you think so?

Thanks Wachtberger, I have messaged to the DJI Facebook Australia, but have yet to receive a response. If the drone was being used legally and DJI know it, they could have put this with the image (ie. a permit was applied for, drone was being used by a professional etc.) Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but maybe I have a point as well about this having wider implications for all of us?

Greg Glasson Posted at 2018-1-19 14:05
Thanks Wachtberger, I have messaged to the DJI Facebook Australia, but have yet to receive a response. If the drone was being used legally and DJI know it, they could have put this with the image (ie. a permit was applied for, drone was being used by a professional etc.) Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but maybe I have a point as well about this having wider implications for all of us?

I trust that you will get a satisfactory response from them. But I disagree that there would have been a requirement for them to provide any further details. The responsibility of a pilot is a personal one and all of us are obliged to comply with our local regulations and to inform ourselves accordingly. Nobody can take that responsibility away from us and we cannot hold anybody else accountable for our own duties.

Greg Glasson Posted at 2018-1-19 14:02
In Australia our laws are quite clear. And waivers DO NOT override the law. That is why the guy making the wedding video got fined. The rules are clear, no flying within 30 metres (horizontally). It's that simple. If you crash drone into someone's head, it does not matter that they signed a waiver, you will still end up in court and be held responsible. This guy puts it really well...

Precisely - "YOU will be held responsible" - NOT DJI. Waivers exist for highly qualified and very experienced UAV pilots which includes Police officers, engineers, armed forces personnel, surveillance operatives, film makers etc etc - not just 'weddings'. Waivers will be granted in very strict assessments and are not just given out to people who have read a manual but to people who have written a manual where risk assessments are carried out very methodically - if there were to be any risk of an incident leading to a court hearing the waiver would not be sanctioned. I don't mean to be disrespectful but I'm getting the impression you are not a qualified UAV pilot and are merely forming your conclusions from youtube channels...

Wachtberger Posted at 2018-1-19 14:14
I trust that you will get a satisfactory response from them. But I disagree that there would have been a requirement for them to provide any further details. The responsibility of a pilot is a personal one and all of us are obliged to comply with our local regulations and to inform ourselves accordingly. Nobody can take that responsibility away from us and we cannot hold anybody else accountable for our own duties.

Now THAT makes perfect sense - well said mate!

I consider insurance is a must these days, but I imagine that failing to comply with each and every aspect of flying within the drone code(UK) from max height to landowners' permission  will render it invalid.

luciens Posted at 2018-1-19 11:31
But you need a driver's license at least before you can even buy a car. In the US, you can't drive a new car off the lot without insurance either in every state in the union, I believe. That is, I don't know of a way to buy a new car in the states without actually knowing how to drive first.

That's what DJI should be doing - they should be at least ensuring that their customers can "drive a car". As it is, you don't have to have any qualifications whatsoever to buy a mavic pro or a P4P at BestBuy. Nobody will ask you anything at all; they'll just take your money and let you walk out the door with the copter.

Since when do you need a drivers license, to buy a car?
To drive it, on public roads/places, it is needed by law.
But you can buy and register it, without having one.
And lots of people driving cars without having one. Some over decades

Greg Glasson Posted at 2018-1-19 14:05
Thanks Wachtberger, I have messaged to the DJI Facebook Australia, but have yet to receive a response. If the drone was being used legally and DJI know it, they could have put this with the image (ie. a permit was applied for, drone was being used by a professional etc.) Maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but maybe I have a point as well about this having wider implications for all of us?

Do you actually, genuinely believe that a multi US billion dollar organisation who are the worlds market leaders in aerial camera platforms for consumers, hiring the worlds most skilled and qualified UAV pilots is going to advertise a new drone at a global launch event by using illegal footage in their advertising, place that on social media and thus expose themselves to a massive lawsuit by the Australian authorities just to take a pic of the opera house? Seriously?

Bright Spark Posted at 2018-1-19 15:01
I consider insurance is a must these days, but I imagine that failing to comply with each and every aspect of flying within the drone code(UK) from max height to landowners' permission  will render it invalid.

I have £5,000,000 of third party public liability insurance to fly drones for recreational use anywhere in Europe. The only exception is that I do not use my drone in a commercial operation - cost - £19.99 a YEAR! No mention of adhering to the drone code in the T&C's but yes, it would be wise to fly in line with it at all times.

From my perspective I can easily  stand the loss of a drone financially.
But a third party liability claim would almost certainly bankrupt me.
Many people do not know if they are drunk or racing in a car they have no insurance.
And I'm old enough to know if an insurance co can get out of paying, it will.

Bright Spark Posted at 2018-1-19 15:24
From my perspective I can easily  stand the loss of a drone financially.
But a third party liability claim would almost certainly bankrupt me.
Many people do not know if they are drunk or racing in a car they have no insurance.

Sorry, you think that 'many people' as in the majority of motorists in UK think that their insurance will remain valid if they commit a criminal offence using their car by drinking and driving? 'Many' is very subjective so can you please enlighten me with how you quantify that statement as I can not imagine that is accurate in the slightest.
And working in financial services - if the claim is legitimate they are legally obligated under the FCA to pay out.

A CW Posted at 2018-1-19 15:06
Do you actually, genuinely believe that a multi US billion dollar organisation who are the worlds market leaders in aerial camera platforms for consumers, hiring the worlds most skilled and qualified UAV pilots is going to advertise a new drone at a global launch event by using illegal footage in their advertising, place that on social media and thus expose themselves to a massive lawsuit by the Australian authorities just to take a pic of the opera house? Seriously?

You have literally taken the words out of my mouth... ;-)

Wachtberger Posted at 2018-1-19 15:48
You have literally taken the words out of my mouth... ;-)

It's quite outstanding what you come across on here sometimes. Now I know why TV presenters say "don't do this at home" before somebody on the show swallows a sword LOL

luciens Posted at 2018-1-19 11:23
DJI should be doing its due diligence in marketing and selling its products responsibly. That means doing at least the very most basic work of ensuring that customers of DJI aircraft have at least the bare minimum qualifications to actually use the products properly and safely. What they're doing instead is, unfortunately, what most large companies do - they sell to literally any Tom, Phil or Harry that comes along into BestBuy with the purchase price and do nothing more than that. Obviously you won't make nearly as much money vetting your customers for even basic proficiency with your product; its much more profitable to just sell to anyone who can write a check for it.

So, of course, when you don't exercise even the smallest responsibility with the sale of your product, you're guaranteed to have problems. That's why DJI has decided to lock down everything in their firmware; because of the scores and scores of unqualified people flying their aircraft, or trying to, and all the chaos that is happening as a result.

Nonsense.  That like saying that a car manufactuer is responsible for making sure its' buyers/drivers are good drivers, never drink while impared, keep their insurance updated and paid, and follow ALL the rules (including coming to a complete STOP before turning right on red.)  ;-)

A CW Posted at 2018-1-19 15:06
Do you actually, genuinely believe that a multi US billion dollar organisation who are the worlds market leaders in aerial camera platforms for consumers, hiring the worlds most skilled and qualified UAV pilots is going to advertise a new drone at a global launch event by using illegal footage in their advertising, place that on social media and thus expose themselves to a massive lawsuit by the Australian authorities just to take a pic of the opera house? Seriously?

I have alerted CASA as well so if DJI and the person who took the image have no case to answer for, good for them.
The thing is, people should be discouraged from flying their drones in Sydney Harbour. By posting this image DJI seem to be tacitly approving or condoning it.... it's about perception I guess?

A CW Posted at 2018-1-19 15:52
It's quite outstanding what you come across on here sometimes. Now I know why TV presenters say "don't do this at home" before somebody on the show swallows a sword LOL

I agree but still it is a really great and global community here that I am very grateful for! By no way would I consider returning to a certain extremely narrow minded national forum where I have been before.
This DJI forum upholds the freedom of speech. This is great by itself and we should honour it I believe by supporting it and by respecting other views too.

I am enjoying this discussion too, Wachtberger. The whole reason I started this thread, I value the variety of opinions expressed on this forum. Some people just want to post their videos, troubleshoot problems, complain about DJI or whatever, but there are also those on this forum who just enjoy talking about the hobby in general.

Wachtberger Posted at 2018-1-19 16:01
I agree but still it is a really great and global community here that I am very grateful for! By no way would I consider returning to a certain extremely narrow minded national forum where I have been before.
This DJI forum upholds the freedom of speech. This is great by itself and we should honour it I believe by supporting it and by respecting other views too.

That's very true - which is why people like us come back here and share our knowledge and to learn too. It is frustrating sometimes but that's life I guess. I respect the views of others as you know but I personally draw a line when the view is misguided. The problem with any forum or written text is that words can often be misinterpreted quite easily. I'm sure if we were all sat around a table in a pub it would be easier to communicate and understand one another's perspective - at least I hope so anyway LOL

A CW Posted at 2018-1-19 16:19
That's very true - which is why people like us come back here and share our knowledge and to learn too. It is frustrating sometimes but that's life I guess. I respect the views of others as you know but I personally draw a line when the view is misguided. The problem with any forum or written text is that words can often be misinterpreted quite easily. I'm sure if we were all sat around a table in a pub it would be easier to communicate and understand one another's perspective - at least I hope so anyway LOL

Absolutely and it would be great fun I am sure. This brings me to the appropriate conclusion: Cheers, Skol, Nastarovje and all the others...

Greg Glasson Posted at 2018-1-19 15:59
I have alerted CASA as well so if DJI and the person who took the image have no case to answer for, good for them.
The thing is, people should be discouraged from flying their drones in Sydney Harbour. By posting this image DJI seem to be tacitly approving or condoning it.... it's about perception I guess?

I get what you're saying about public perception - it's easy to sit here as a 40+ year old, experienced drone pilot and see through marketing and know that an organisation of this size will have a legal team, PR team etc around them to ensure every second of any advert is 100% permitted to sustain profitability and uphold their credibility. However, I agree that an 18 year old may very well unbox his or her Spark and start flying it around Sydney Harbour because that's what they think they're allowed to do from what they've seen on the advert or you tube.
My point is this - does that responsibility for that 18 year old rest with DJI? It's now your turn to look at the bigger picture - DJI are targeting a very wide market base including professional pilots who, with a waiver, will be able to do exactly what they are advertising. Does the responsibility to educate that 18 year old not rest with the person who physically handed over the drone at point of sale in the store or for the national aviation authority to press more for the education of safe flying or the ministry for transport on behalf of the government who impose the laws in the first place to invoke new legislation in making tests and licensing mandatory? Or does it not rest with the adult who bought the product to learn how to fly it safely and legally by reading the manual, doing their research, watching the tutorials, coming on here to troubleshoot their problems. If a drone crashes into someones head is it the responsibility of the person who made the product or the person flying the drone who crashed the product by not doing what they were instructed to do in the manual. Or do we blame the you tubers you follow who think its cool to throw that very manual away whenever they do an unboxing video as it's only cool stuff that get the subs and likes right... It's very easy to blame DJI, put it that way!  

S-e-ven Posted at 2018-1-19 15:05
Since when do you need a drivers license, to buy a car?
To drive it, on public roads/places, it is needed by law.
But you can buy and register it, without having one.

Well more to the point, to drive in public places you need to know how to drive a car. Think about it: what if an auto manufacturer intentionally sold cars to people who'd never learned how to drive one? Or at best, didn't care if those buyers could drive?

web_parrot Posted at 2018-1-19 15:55
Nonsense.  That like saying that a car manufactuer is responsible for making sure its' buyers/drivers are good drivers, never drink while impared, keep their insurance updated and paid, and follow ALL the rules (including coming to a complete STOP before turning right on red.)  ;-)

So you think it's a good idea for an auto manufacturer to intentionally and knowingly try to sell cars to people who've never driven a car? And have no idea how to do so?
How about manned aircraft to take a more extreme example. Do you think it's a good idea for a helicopter manufacturer for example to sell helis to people who they know have never flown any type of aircraft?