... 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.
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.