Sorry didn't have time to research this cuz I would need to give them the footage soon, but are they any issues with providing footage to a news crew in the US? I was filming some volunteers for a video I am doing and there was also a local TV station there that approached me to use the footage. I don't care, I am not charging them, but as I roughly know it drones still can't be used commercially. Any issues for me if I just give them the footage?
Providing footage to news crews
- Thread starter mtbin2
- Start date
mtbin2 said:
I think if you don't receive compensation for the footage then it's ok. But I'm not a lawyer, so take that with many grains of salt.
Here's a link to Canadian regulations:
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/4989/Droning-on.html
And another one:
http://www.cba.org/CBA/sections_airands ... rones.aspx
As usual, drone seems to be a misunderstood (fearful?) definition. A model aircraft is defined, but a drone/quadcopter is not a model aircraft even if it falls within the same specs?
Much concern of the regulators seems to be over FPV flight, where a controlled UAV could fly over a potentially dangerous area - lose control and hurt someone.
What about line of sight flying, where the "aircraft" could be seen and controlled to be kept away from dangerous and/or "ground-people" areas?
Similar to another analogy I just read (thru a link on this forum), there was discussion about a paper airplane.
What about releasing an uncontrolled helium balloon into the air?
It is accepted that a helium balloon will eventually fall to the ground.
At one time, I was an assistant funeral director. Releasing helium balloons are accepted as a respected symbol of compassion for the deceased during a graveside service.
These balloons are uncontrolled, and could be considered to be a life-threatening device once they come back to ground.
How so?
Almost everything we purchase (mostly hard-goods) comes with a plastic bag. Every plastic bag comes with a warning to keep it away from children and pets, as it could cause suffocation.
So .. continuing this absurd (and most certainly bizarre) thought, releasing a helium balloon could be perceived to be a threat to public health/survival.
If a helium balloon that I had released eventually came down and fell onto the face of an infant, sleeping in a stroller and that infant suffocated, would I be liable for criminal charges?
I'll admit - my analogy is absurd.
I question - could the FAA regulations be considered equally absurd?
Is there any organized lobby-group that will support the legal, responsible operation of controlled, above-ground photo/video capture devices?
Are there any flight-tests that a person could take, to ensure the FAA that the operator was capable?
My apologies if I have personally offended anyone.This post is rhetorical and I am just venting.
Any replies (positive/negative) are constructive.
Thank you for reading.
Cheers
tp
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/4989/Droning-on.html
And another one:
http://www.cba.org/CBA/sections_airands ... rones.aspx
As usual, drone seems to be a misunderstood (fearful?) definition. A model aircraft is defined, but a drone/quadcopter is not a model aircraft even if it falls within the same specs?
Much concern of the regulators seems to be over FPV flight, where a controlled UAV could fly over a potentially dangerous area - lose control and hurt someone.
What about line of sight flying, where the "aircraft" could be seen and controlled to be kept away from dangerous and/or "ground-people" areas?
Similar to another analogy I just read (thru a link on this forum), there was discussion about a paper airplane.
What about releasing an uncontrolled helium balloon into the air?
It is accepted that a helium balloon will eventually fall to the ground.
At one time, I was an assistant funeral director. Releasing helium balloons are accepted as a respected symbol of compassion for the deceased during a graveside service.
These balloons are uncontrolled, and could be considered to be a life-threatening device once they come back to ground.
How so?
Almost everything we purchase (mostly hard-goods) comes with a plastic bag. Every plastic bag comes with a warning to keep it away from children and pets, as it could cause suffocation.
So .. continuing this absurd (and most certainly bizarre) thought, releasing a helium balloon could be perceived to be a threat to public health/survival.
If a helium balloon that I had released eventually came down and fell onto the face of an infant, sleeping in a stroller and that infant suffocated, would I be liable for criminal charges?
I'll admit - my analogy is absurd.
I question - could the FAA regulations be considered equally absurd?
Is there any organized lobby-group that will support the legal, responsible operation of controlled, above-ground photo/video capture devices?
Are there any flight-tests that a person could take, to ensure the FAA that the operator was capable?
My apologies if I have personally offended anyone.This post is rhetorical and I am just venting.
Any replies (positive/negative) are constructive.
Thank you for reading.
Cheers
tp
Similar threads
