September 02, 2014, 10:41:12 AM

Author Topic: Wedding shooter - DO NOT TRY THIS, UNLESS  (Read 5598 times)

dstppy

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 895
    • View Profile
Re: Wedding shooter - DO NOT TRY THIS, UNLESS
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2013, 01:15:04 PM »
... You want to GO TO JAIL.

In the US, where this was taken it is ILLEGAL to fly drones for commercial purposes, UNLESS you have one of the few FAA waivers which are mainly for crops and law enforcement purposes. 

Many companies who do this type of aerial photography for real estate, etc. have been visited by the FAA and given cease and desist.

For each incident, a person faces fines from $10,000 to $100,000 (yes... $100K per incident, and 3 to 10 years in jail.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15/faa-halts-mans-drone-photography-business-over-regulations/

And while the jacka$$ photographer is happy with All press is good press... Getting viral coverage could cost him a whole lot more.

So I'm curious, not having done a lot (well, any) research on it, how do they classify the hobbyist RC helo's & planes that have been flying for decades? What's the difference? If it's when you go out of line of sight, sure, I can completely understand that and it makes sense. Otherwise, what's the real difference? Is it the fact that people are being paid to basically do the same thing they'd be free to do if they were just doing it for fun?

In the un-crazy states, no one worries about line-of-sight flight as long as it's not in a no-fly zone (takeoff/landing of an airport, around federal buildings, prisons etc.).

A few states have been working to ban the use of "drones" which involve hobby helicopters.  Oddly enough, those are states one should be prudent enough to only be 'in' when you're flying over them in an FAA approved vehicle. :)
Canon Rumors is presently creating photographer shortages in Middle Earth (all the trolls emigrated here)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wedding shooter - DO NOT TRY THIS, UNLESS
« Reply #15 on: August 21, 2013, 01:15:04 PM »

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1668
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: Wedding shooter - DO NOT TRY THIS, UNLESS
« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2013, 04:15:24 PM »
... You want to GO TO JAIL.

In the US, where this was taken it is ILLEGAL to fly drones for commercial purposes, UNLESS you have one of the few FAA waivers which are mainly for crops and law enforcement purposes. 

Many companies who do this type of aerial photography for real estate, etc. have been visited by the FAA and given cease and desist.

For each incident, a person faces fines from $10,000 to $100,000 (yes... $100K per incident, and 3 to 10 years in jail.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15/faa-halts-mans-drone-photography-business-over-regulations/

And while the jacka$$ photographer is happy with All press is good press... Getting viral coverage could cost him a whole lot more.

So I'm curious, not having done a lot (well, any) research on it, how do they classify the hobbyist RC helo's & planes that have been flying for decades? What's the difference? If it's when you go out of line of sight, sure, I can completely understand that and it makes sense. Otherwise, what's the real difference? Is it the fact that people are being paid to basically do the same thing they'd be free to do if they were just doing it for fun?

In the un-crazy states, no one worries about line-of-sight flight as long as it's not in a no-fly zone (takeoff/landing of an airport, around federal buildings, prisons etc.).

A few states have been working to ban the use of "drones" which involve hobby helicopters.  Oddly enough, those are states one should be prudent enough to only be 'in' when you're flying over them in an FAA approved vehicle. :)

Interesting, that's good to know. Kinda funny that these bans and all this worry has been happening only since the rise of government use of UAV's and smaller quadro-coptors that are commercially available. Or purchased. Hobbyists have been flying the RC copters & planes for decades, and it's only now that people are getting really antsy about in most of the governmental areas.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

TAF

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 151
    • View Profile
Re: Wedding shooter - DO NOT TRY THIS, UNLESS
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2013, 07:28:23 PM »
... You want to GO TO JAIL.

In the US, where this was taken it is ILLEGAL to fly drones for commercial purposes, UNLESS you have one of the few FAA waivers which are mainly for crops and law enforcement purposes. 

Many companies who do this type of aerial photography for real estate, etc. have been visited by the FAA and given cease and desist.

For each incident, a person faces fines from $10,000 to $100,000 (yes... $100K per incident, and 3 to 10 years in jail.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15/faa-halts-mans-drone-photography-business-over-regulations/

And while the jacka$$ photographer is happy with All press is good press... Getting viral coverage could cost him a whole lot more.

So I'm curious, not having done a lot (well, any) research on it, how do they classify the hobbyist RC helo's & planes that have been flying for decades? What's the difference? If it's when you go out of line of sight, sure, I can completely understand that and it makes sense. Otherwise, what's the real difference? Is it the fact that people are being paid to basically do the same thing they'd be free to do if they were just doing it for fun?


We're talking about the US Gov't here, so the rules and regulations have no basis in logic or rational thought.

A (very wealthy) hobbyist flying a remotely controlled aircraft with every surveillance sensor known to man for his personal enjoyment - legal, as far as the federal government is concerned  (within the altitude and location limitations associated with model aircraft operation...if it's OK for your 12 year old neighbor, it's OK for you with all the camera gear; basically, stay low, stay away from airports, and keep your aircraft light in weight).

But someone flying a toy helicopter with a camera on it and GETTING PAID TO DO IT - illegal.

It's all in the 'getting paid' part.

I kid you not.  See:  http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/

Yes, this is one of the dumbest pieces of regulatory nonsense in recent memory.  And they plan on fixing it over the course of the next couple of years...and the fix will probably be worse than the present rules.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Wedding shooter - DO NOT TRY THIS, UNLESS
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2013, 07:28:23 PM »