Separate names with a comma.
Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by lgeist, May 2, 2014.
http://fstoppers.com/faa-wants-to-issue ... ado-damage
I thought it was a cool video. What happened there?
what do you mean? the tornado? or the fact that using a drone to capture footage even for use as "reporting" is considered "commercial purpose" which is currently banned by FAA regulations?
I was talking about the damage. I suspected tornado or the like. Was this video sold? Or just the fact someone used it on the news? So, I can sit in a field and shoot video...that's ok.....but if its up in the air, its illegal? Bs is my thought. So let's say my house in on fire and I take my Phantom off and video it and it's on the news...I'm in violation?
No definatly not. It seems you have desame law as here in europe.
Film whatever you want, and publish whatever you want- as long as you dont get any form of reward for that. If its on youtube you didnt gain anything by that. But news articles can use it. But thats up to them.
Article in today's Chicago Tribune talks about this very issue. The feeling is this will go all the way to the Supreme Court if the FAA does another large fine and the company takes it to court.
Looks like FAA wenst after the NYC Phantom guy from a few months ago:
http://www.suasnews.com/2014/05/28920/f ... tom-pilot/
Apparently, the FAA hasn't gotten the message from the NTSB.
Using their very own words, the NTSB basically said, "CEASE AND DESIST"
The FAA can not issue a citation because there is no law!
They can not take action because they have no authority to do so!
When will they learn?
Upon the FAA appeal the NTSB decision was stayed.
Here is a link to the Appeal filed be the FAA with interesting commentary by The Drone Law Journal:
http://dronelawjournal.com/faa-files-ap ... rker-case/
Fortunately even before this trial the FAA's regulatory authority over model aircraft was very unclear. At best because of the absence of any regulation commercial use was completely legal. The FAA's claim on the decision being stayed doesn't change this. An appeal doesn't bring non existent laws into existence.
Unfortunately the FAA can and will continue to issue fines despite the lack of laws or authority to do so. It will come down to those willing and able to hire an attorney good enough to prove whether or not what they did was legal.
If I recall correctly the original trail and fine was over safety. The formal complaint didn't even mention, or was not based on commercial application of an UAV. Perhaps they are going to try a different route with this latest news coverage from a UAV.