FAA just called me

tapiot said:
Now I'm in a dilemma. My sole purpose is for commercial aerial photography but as of yet, I can't even find anyone in FAA that will respond to email.

That's because the FAA does not permit commercial UAV operations and have made it clear time and time again. Simple as that. IF you can find someone to talk to, they will tell you you can't and that the regs permitting it will probably not be released until 2015.

If you already bought a Phantom for AP, then I feel a little bit sorry for you, but you probably should have done a little more research.
 
At the time I fly my quad, I'm doing it for my personal use, however if someone offers to pay me for the footage after, well what can I say....... :mrgreen:
 
Well, I appreciate the sympathy but, I have not bought one and I AM doing the research. So go feel sorry for someone else.
 
Now I'm in a dilemma. My sole purpose is for commercial aerial photography but as of yet, I can't even find anyone in FAA that will respond to email.

Why don't you contact someone that builds professional aerial video platforms, and ask them for some insight ?
Aerial Media Pro's, build some fantastic octocopters, for professional use, call them and ask what steps are necessary.
The worst they can do is tell you to bug off.
 
Don't charge for flights or bill for time spent visiting and photographing a location, charge for time spent editing video.

You don't need to be a lawyer to see this loophole. And yes, I'm betting it would stand up in court.
 
is it possible someone trolled you?

sounds like something one of my friends would do to me

(some of them would be pretty adept at pulling off a prank such as this)

or your competition maybe?

or some old lady you pissed off?

i mean at least some of these are possible options.

when you think about it, a governmental authority would probably not call to say they are sending a letter. They would visit you personally, or send the letter with seal and letterhead, or if it was enough of an issue to them they would send law enforcement to bring you in for questioning, or would serve some type of subpoena and/or order to appear in front of an agency that has jurisdiction.

the more i think about it the more i think you were just being trolled.
 
when you think about it, a governmental authority would probably not call to say they are sending a letter. They would visit you personally, or send the letter with seal and letterhead, or if it was enough of an issue to them they would send law enforcement to bring you in for questioning, or would serve some type of subpoena and/or order to appear in front of an agency that has jurisdiction.

the more i think about it the more i think you were just being trolled.

I wondered about it too. Who would be so vindictive, and arrogant, that they would call you on the phone to let you know
you were being singled out for legal action.
 
Audaciter said:
when you think about it, a governmental authority would probably not call to say they are sending a letter. They would visit you personally, or send the letter with seal and letterhead, or if it was enough of an issue to them they would send law enforcement to bring you in for questioning, or would serve some type of subpoena and/or order to appear in front of an agency that has jurisdiction.

the more i think about it the more i think you were just being trolled.

I wondered about it too. Who would be so vindictive, and arrogant, that they would call you on the phone to let you know
you were being singled out for legal action.

I think you're both vastly underestimating the US Federal Government. They don't are about individuals and will strong arm anyone just because they can.
 
I think you're both vastly underestimating the US Federal Government. They don't are about individuals and will strong arm anyone just because they can.

You may be right. Their motto is: "We've got what it takes, to take what you've got" :mrgreen:
 
Audaciter said:
I think you're both vastly underestimating the US Federal Government. They don't are about individuals and will strong arm anyone just because they can.

You may be right. Their motto is: "We've got what it takes, to take what you've got" :mrgreen:

setting aside conspiracy, intimidation, and 'big brother' types of theories for a moment, let's put this in its proper perspective:

1.) even if you think that the United States government has become this ubiquitous evil presence the situation at hand is small potatoes. By a country mile.

2.) it would be counterproductive in every regard to harass the original poster with a phone call in advance of some type of legal proceeding. it would give the original poster a chance to cover tracks or prepare a defense.

3.) the only thing that makes sense, with the little we know about this poster, is that he was being trolled.

As important as we would like to think that we are -with our flying toys and all- I doubt Uncle Sam gives two s's about our activities. There are some FAA rules in effect, yes. I doubt they will be hauling anyone to jail any time soon over violating them. Let's keep it real here, this poster is not the Snowden case redux.
 
nosarafern said:
Audaciter said:
I think you're both vastly underestimating the US Federal Government. They don't are about individuals and will strong arm anyone just because they can.

You may be right. Their motto is: "We've got what it takes, to take what you've got" :mrgreen:

setting aside conspiracy, intimidation, and 'big brother' types of theories for a moment, let's put this in its proper perspective:

1.) even if you think that the United States government has become this ubiquitous evil presence the situation at hand is small potatoes. By a country mile.

2.) it would be counterproductive in every regard to harass the original poster with a phone call in advance of some type of legal proceeding. it would give the original poster a chance to cover tracks or prepare a defense.

3.) the only thing that makes sense, with the little we know about this poster, is that he was being trolled.

As important as we would like to think that we are -with our flying toys and all- I doubt Uncle Sam gives two s's about our activities. There are some FAA rules in effect, yes. I doubt they will be hauling anyone to jail any time soon over violating them. Let's keep it real here, this poster is not the Snowden case redux.


Thank you and this was my point earlier in this thread.
 
nosarafern said:
As important as we would like to think that we are -with our flying toys

Noooooo :eek: dont you dare ever say its a flying toy :(












I am very Important but my tinfoil hat keeps me safe and Its a professional flying toy :lol:
 
martcerv said:
nosarafern said:
As important as we would like to think that we are -with our flying toys

Noooooo :eek: dont you dare ever say its a flying toy :(


i put it in for emphasis (thinking that is how the FAA would look at our lifestyle, not how we would look at it)







I am very Important but my tinfoil hat keeps me safe and Its a professional flying toy :lol:
 
Hello.

I'm seriously considering buying a Phantom for personal use. Although my main motivation for purchasing the drone is for personal entertainment (I really enjoy this sort of ****), I do see a lot of potential for this machine to be a nice addition to my working equipment. Long story short, I take pictures and occasional video for a local newspaper. I get the fact that commercial use is forbidden and publishing "official" aerial images on a very popular news website is obviously commercial. So using it like so is out of the question, at least ti'll FAA regulations are established, around 2015.

But, let's hypothetically say that I got called to cover some news (i.e. take pictures and ground video during some protest). I do my usual job, and my "official" pictures and/or videos are posted on the website, company's watermark and all. Then, after I do my job, I take out my Phantom and shoot some footage of the same protest, which then I'll use to make a PERSONAL video for my YouTube channel (no affiliation to my employer whatsoever). Then my employer, who follows my channel, tweets, shares, and/or posts my personal video on the website as user generated (non paid for) content. Is it still considered a violation? I didn't get payed to make an aereal video, so I wouldn't see it as "commercial". Would adding some disclaimer in the video help? I.e. "Video made under FAA regulations. Not made for commercial use. No money was exchanged for the making of this video. 'X' newspaper did not ask me to shoot this video". (you get the idea).

I know most of you aren't lawyers so I don't expect a definitive answer. I post this hypothetical scenario to get some feedback and get the debate moving. Thanks for your replies.
 
As a variant on this, and there are many, I have been getting a lot of pushback from YouTube lately on my videos. Every time they catch any soundtrack with third party music they have been putting a warning on my video manager page up to outright bans on mobile devices or some countries. Sometimes this is even me playing basic folk tune bagpipe type stuff, crazy! I've challenged some of their claims successfully, but caved in others. It's not like I'm using these goofy YouTube videos commercially, but they don't see it that way. Some of the soundtrack music owners have tagged my videos at the bottom with a link to their website to buy the original if interested. i think thats fair and works for everybody.

Bottom line is, if your video COULD be used commercially, it is deemed as being commercial, and up to you to fight it out otherwise. And that is probably how the FAA would see it too.
 
Be careful of those warnings, according to what I read, they'll shut your YouTube Channel down indefinitely.
 
FangsCPO said:
Be careful of those warnings, according to what I read, they'll shut your YouTube Channel down indefinitely.

Now this is funny^^^

Nope never gonna happen, why because posting videos on youtube is not considered commercial use, however I'd like to see links stating what you read.

As for the OP, he was just trolling us, otherwise there would be a copy of the official letter posted by now.
 
FAA out of Scottsdale, AZ? I am betting that their only office is in Phoenix not Scottsdale.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers