Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

Providing footage to news crews

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by mtbin2, Jun 27, 2014.

  1. mtbin2

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2014
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  2. BigTulsa

    Joined:
    May 29, 2014
    Messages:
    207
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Tulsa, OK
    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.
     
  3. Mosleyh

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2013
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Happyflyer

    Joined:
    May 5, 2014
    Messages:
    1,805
    Likes Received:
    98
    Location:
    Cold, Cold, Michigan
    Interesting.
     
  5. geosky

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2014
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    British Columbia, Cda.
    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