Picture illegal to sell

[mr_3_0_5]

Can someone shoot me a link to were its legal to sell photos from a drone

A friend was interested in buying my pv2 but is reading everywhere online that he can't sell a photo from it so he's not interested
I know it's not true and we can use these for commercial use but where is that in black and white so I can send it to him

 

[tizzl10]

Can someone shoot me a link to were its legal to sell photos from a drone

that was overturned by a judge a month or so ago..it isnt illegal..now.

 

[mr_3_0_5]

Can someone shoot me a link to were its legal to sell photos from a drone

that was overturned by a judge a month or so ago..it isnt illegal..now.

I know but how can I prove this to someone not in loved with this much
I need a link to send him once he reads that he will buy it

 

[ZonComGMZ]

The FAA will say it's illegal but they the NTSB has found that it isn't a law, just a guideline. They can still come after you or scare you but if it ends up in court again they will lose.

 

[tizzl10]

google is your friend.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-0 ... t-faa.html

 

[RedRyderMedia]

Just be aware just because you took the photo doesn't mean you own all the rights to it.

Anyone looking to sell photos needs to study and understand copyright laws.....independent of any drone issues.

 

[OI Photography]

Just be aware just because you took the photo doesn't mean you own all the rights to it.

Anyone looking to sell photos needs to study and understand copyright laws.....independent of any drone issues.

+1

@305: http://dronelawjournal.com/ covers it pretty thoroughly

 

[mr_3_0_5]

Thanks for the links guys
He is going to buy my pv2
So I guess I'll be moving To a plus shortly

 

[Timtro]

A bigger concern is the problem of insurance.

Recent accidents involving a runner in a marathon in Australia (http://www.runnersworld.com/general-interest/triathlete-hit-in-head-by-drone) and a spectator at a sports event in Virginia (http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/08/27/faa-investigates-after-drone-crashes-in-virginia/) which did not escape the attention of the FAA, by the way, underscore the very real risk of financial liability for the "drone" operator. Those who think their AMA insurance (specifically excludes commercial coverage) or home owner's insurance (again, exclusions for commercial claims) need to investigate further. Even normal business liability insurance needs to be carefully reviewed.

The RCAPA has made an association with an insurance carrier http://aerialpak.com/ (follow the trail from the reference at http://rcapa.net/), but check the details on this page carefully: http://aerialpak.com/why-aerial-pak.jsp. Another company, Transport Risk Management (http://transportrisk.com/uavrcfilm.html)provides typical quotes for premiums from various carriers between $2,000 and $6,000 per year, which is fine if you're a DOD contractor.

This is the next big problem and the FAA is making the problem worse with their hesitation to address UAV rules in a timely manner, which creates an added chicken-and-the-egg problem with regard to insurance carriers who can't cover "illegal" activities. (Try to clearly define "illegal" in the current environment, I dare you).

But get your hopes up too much because there's now pressure from another direction (http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/F3801.htm) that could push the "standards" out of range for 95% of current UAV owners which, if adopted, could predictably result in the kind of chaos that pervades the world of Citizens Band radio.

Hang on tight, because it's gonna be a heck of a ride for quite a while longer.

PS: If a quadcopter falls on somebody does it hurt less if it's not being flown for a fee? Just wondering.

 

[Erroneous007]

The FAA appealed the federal ruling though, so that decision is stayed for now (but it still really isn't illegal). The sense and avoid stuff will be required for flying out of the line of sight. This was also apparently a big problem in Afghanistan with the Predators. If they lose control link, they immediately climb to "get out of the way" and do not have sense and avoid radar. There were several near midair collisions near the airport because of that. Texas A&M (one of the Federal test sites) will be working on that issue. A FAA rep told me yesterday that while they cannot say what will be required for small commercial work, the operator will have to be certified, although this may only require ground school. (Right now if using a Certificate of Authorization to fly for say FEMA, a FAA licensed pilot is required to be onsite even for an fully autonomous small UAS. (with Commercial license or military training).

 

[CRankin]

A FAA rep told me yesterday that while they cannot say what will be required for small commercial work, the operator will have to be certified, although this may only require ground school. (Right now if using a Certificate of Authorization to fly for say FEMA, a FAA licensed pilot is required to be onsite even for an fully autonomous small UAS. (with Commercial license or military training).

Good luck with getting a lot of small part-time commercial outfits to follow certification and the like. When this comes into effect, I have a feeling that this might drive a lot of folks who just do this as a business on the side (weekends) and have a day job underground... especially if it involves considerable cost. Very few will be willing to spend hundreds of dollars (or more) on certifications and licensing for something that they might only make $10,000 or so per year doing after paying for equipment and other expenses. The economics just won't work out for it to be worth someone's time.

The smarter thing to do would be for the FAA to require membership in a local (or national) flying club and strict adherence to its standards. In both the short and long run, it's far more effective to let the hobby and industry sort itself out and police itself. First, those who wish for the hobby and industry to keep a good reputation will be far stricter than any government agency would ever be. Second, far fewer tax dollars get wasted on discovery and enforcement that way.

We don't need government agencies telling us what we can and can't do with our multirotors. That's only going to lead to unnecessary costs, red tape, and delays. Think about it: when was the last time any government agency or official was actually helpful with anything?

 

[Timtro]

I predict that if the FAA makes the requirements too difficult the result will be chaos not unlike what happened with Citizens Band radio. This cat is out of the bag and multiplying at a rate of 15,000 a month and the FAA will have a daunting task attenotubg to herd those cats. (Pardon my mangled metaphors)

 

[Erroneous007]

I predict that if the FAA makes the requirements too difficult the result will be chaos not unlike what happened with Citizens Band radio. This cat is out of the bag and multiplying at a rate of 15,000 a month and the FAA will have a daunting task attenotubg to herd those cats. (Pardon my mangled metaphors)

Yeah, I have heard that in rumors too. I don't really see how the FAA will police individuals. But for companies that will be doing it (like in my case), we will have to follow to rules to stay in the business and keep our clients trust. Certification will also allow people to get insurance (other than hobby insurance like the AMA, which doesn't apply for commercial work). I don't really think that ground school would be a bad idea for those flying commercially around people and cities because it will at least make people situationally aware and know where to expect manned aircraft, etc. I think though that if individuals end up flying anyway on the side and cause property damage or hurt someone and are not certified (whatever that ends up being), that's when they would get caught and when the fines (or worse?) would start. Anyway, the FAA guy told me he would let me know if he gets any early info what will be required and I will relay that here if I get it. I am hoping they would require much less for those flying for say farmers (expected to be 80% of the commercial business) when not around people. An advocacy group called AUVSI is actively lobbying congress to try to get FAA to move more quickly and prevent onerous regulations.

 

[Timtro]

This could be where the real problem may come from: FAA Regulation 7610.4
http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen5519_arg/papers/2005_7177_194.pdf

Interestingly, the recently updated software for DJI Phantom 2 and P2V now includes GPS-based avoidance of restricted airspace. Granted, the database needs a lot more than the major airports currently in the database, but the database can be easily updated (like sector charts). It would seem that current capability is now one step away from true SAA, requiring only input from a sensing module. A Google search reveals several projects in that area including 2.4 gHz, audio and radar based detection. Some of that research goes back several years (2009: https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/2009/7/DeyFSR2009.pdf) but it is my feeling that it is not that far out of reach now, given the current state of the art.

My personal take is that a bat-style high-frequency sound (22 kHz?) Dopplar-based system tied to the NAZI controller might be the most logical path. The logic being this: An aircraft requires long distance (radar) avoidance sensing due to the size of the aircraft, its reduced agility, and manual avoidance response. An sUAV need only detect an approaching obstacle within a distance corresponding to its own size and agility. It takes time for a full size aircraft to change direction but only a seconds for an sUAV to move a great distance relative to its size. Where an aircraft might require a 3 mile safety range an sUAV would only need a few hundred feet of detection, with an automated response to initiate a specified avoidance maneuver, such as dropping down 100 ft or down and to the left by an appropriate distance to be determined through testing. The on-board computation could simply detect multiple sampling responses to recognize both a moving object and the ground or trees, for example, and initiate avoidance in response to the object that is moving faster in relation to the background reflections. I don't know what if any work is being done in this direction.

 

[Erroneous007]

This could be where the real problem may come from: FAA Regulation 7610.4
http://www.colorado.edu/ASEN/asen5519_arg/papers/2005_7177_194.pdf

I think the sense and avoid is primarily for working beyond the line of site. Working in the LOS adds the sense and avoid aspect (by having a spotter onsite). One thing they were talking about last week was possibly having all aircraft have GPS and then a transponder that provides the data to air traffic control and each other and that would work as a sense and avoid system without having to do major land-based system upgrades. But they are very concerned about hacking guidance systems (much easier to hack into a UAV and then crash it into a building than to hijack a airliner). So, there are still some issues to work on. Obviously they are concerned mostly about larger aircraft that could do some damage. The initial regulations will be for 55 pounds and less (small UAVs). I would have thought they would have come up with something for small UAVs 5 pounds or less that can't do much damage (and that will be used by the majority of the clients), but I think some of the big boy's lobbyists got the weight raised because many of those companies "small" UAVs weight 25 pounds and up. (And cost over $100k). In any event, it's going to be interesting!

 

[Timtro]

Australia appears to be taking a sensible approach with registration for a "reference number" as a first step to commercial certification. http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91494 This is what the FAA should be doing right now.

The ATSM F38 proposals might be appropriate for larger, heavy UAS (eg, converted military drones for use by oil companies) but certainly not for the small time aerial photographer. If the much anticipated rules are shaped solely by F38 the current process will be broken. As has been stated, "Sense and Avoid" is only practical for the heavier (25 lb+) and larger craft and those operating outside of VLOS. If technology can make S&A or even ADS-B work on a DJI at some point without killing the battery, then fine, but absolutely not at this stage of the game.

If the FAA makes the fence too high for the thousands of small operators, or if they wait too long to provide for limited commercial use by the small operator and independent movie producer, the fence will be ignored and the FAA will be reduced to swatting flies with no hope of ever regaining order, and they will have utterly failed in their mission of "promoting safety in the national airspace".

I hope they get the message and very soon. The NTSB ruling put a big tear in the fence. It's only a matter of time.

After 40+ years the FCC still doesn't have a handle on illegal CB (high power linear amplifier) radio use and probably never will.