I think you are right.............I think we’re have just entered the “coulda, woulda, shoulda, if my aunt had balls shed’a been my uncle” territory
Questions for the Experienced guys about the video recording and its playback issues
- Thread starter Tower_King
- Start date
bb1040, if the imminent new UK/EU legislation is any guide, drone laws will soon no longer differentiate between recreational and commercial operators. Hobbyists will be free to give or sell a photograph to a friend or neighbour without breaking any law - as long as any income received is properly accounted for. And if the copyright is handed over at the same time then the new owner of that photograph would be at liberty to use it commercially - as long as any necessary release forms had been signed.
Indeed, I'm not sure why an amateur drone photographer should be any different from an amateur terra firma photographer in this respect - and amateur photographers can sell their work at will, if it's good enough to attract a buyer:
How to Make Money as an Amateur Photographer
The argument may be somewhat different if a recreational drone operator wanted to advertise a commercial service; but if he take photographs or videos as an amateur pilot and observes the drone laws then it's not logical that he should be any more restricted than an amateur street photographer in monetizing his imagery afterwards if he finds an opportunity to do so.
I can understand that some commercial drone operators might not welcome competition from amateurs but in reality, the professionals are likely to do a better job and they can also apply to film in places an amateur can't fly to. Nor will amateurs be proactively touting for commercial work unless they want to give up their day job - and undergo the rigorous training which will still be demanded of commercial operators.
Indeed, I'm not sure why an amateur drone photographer should be any different from an amateur terra firma photographer in this respect - and amateur photographers can sell their work at will, if it's good enough to attract a buyer:
How to Make Money as an Amateur Photographer
The argument may be somewhat different if a recreational drone operator wanted to advertise a commercial service; but if he take photographs or videos as an amateur pilot and observes the drone laws then it's not logical that he should be any more restricted than an amateur street photographer in monetizing his imagery afterwards if he finds an opportunity to do so.
I can understand that some commercial drone operators might not welcome competition from amateurs but in reality, the professionals are likely to do a better job and they can also apply to film in places an amateur can't fly to. Nor will amateurs be proactively touting for commercial work unless they want to give up their day job - and undergo the rigorous training which will still be demanded of commercial operators.
I guess my problem is,as a hobby flyer, I still think of these little plastic drones as toys, not commercial aircraft.......I use mine as a mobile tripod for my camera, I can hover at 6 feet and walk around it as it follows me, taking pictures and it can hover over rough ground and still stay steady like a tripod, and be moved around to get different shots, even over water. I usually follow right behind my drone at low altitude, walking through the woods and trails, slow close quarter flying...I have enough videos of the top of my house and the neighborhood, I am learning to fly in the forest, below the tree tops, much more interesting and challenging that those high satellite like videos ......I just like to play with it......Hey I am 71 years old and retired, I can play with it if I want to.........I also have a 32 year old Goldwing motorcycle I ride all summer, like the drone, it gets me out of the house once in awhile ........I baby my Q500 4K drone ( Quadcopter ) because I can't afford to buy another one and it is fun and takes good video, I also have three other action cameras I use on the bike.......
So you should be pleased that the current drone legislation, which is crudely based on commercial flying law (much of which is inappropriate to recreational drone operation) is soon to be replaced by new rules which have been drawn up specifically for drones and which introduce different tiers of regulation depending on weight and desired geo-access to people and places.
Flying in a forest is a difficult one though as you wouldn't be able to tell who else is there and could suddenly find yourself within feet of other people, thereby breaking the law.
Flying in a forest is a difficult one though as you wouldn't be able to tell who else is there and could suddenly find yourself within feet of other people, thereby breaking the law.
The way I see it, just walking is breaking FAA laws, considering they claim to control all air space from the surface of the dirt to the edge of space. Even my grass in my lawn is infringing on their air space, as far as the FAA is concerned, you have no private property, I always considered the airspace from the top of my trees to my dirt as my private airspace, now they say that also belongs to the federal government....I can take the camera off the drone, put it on the steady grip take pictures of my house and use them in a flyer to sell my house, and there would be no problem, put the camera back on the drone and go around the house 5 1/2 feet off the ground, about the same height as when I was holding the steady grip , and I would have to possess a commercial pilot's license to use those pictures for the same thing........There should be a minimum altitude, where the FAA does not bother you...When I was flying a real plane the rule we had was that we had to stay 1000 feet above any structures or obstructions, unless landing or taking off.....maybe anything under 100 feet would be OK without all the stupid rules.........As far as flying in the forest, and running into people, I am not talking about a city park, I live in NW Pennsylvania and there are plenty of forests that nobody goes into and I don't fly in real tight forests where you can't see what you are doing, that would be suicide for your drone..and like I said, I walk right behind my drone, it never gets more than thirty feet away from me (that is less than half the length of my house ) when I am flying in the forest...I just want the federal government to leave me alone to play with my toy, I am not bothering anybody else........This is a recreational thing for me, gets me out of the house for a while. I do alot of my flying right around my house, I will go out in the evening when the wind dies down and fly around the neighborhood for 15 minutes or so, then pack it up and go back inside, transfer the video to my computer, then go to bed.....some of my neighbors have pretty good sized fields around their house and have no problem with me flying over them,. I get out there about 700 feet, it looks quite small out that far, then head for home, all totatal including take off and landing, about 17 minutes......a real threat to the FAA........I went up to 400 feet one time, really have no need to fly that high....if I want higher pictures, I can use Google Earth, they have great aerial shots of my house from way up there.........I have just one more thing to say........FLY SAFE AND HAVE FUN........
Nice rant but not based entirely on fact. You, and every land or building owner, does own the airspace above it. In the UK that used to be to infinity (inScotland it still does I believe) but the law was changed about 50 years ago to cap you airspace ownership to a safe height to allow air transport - which I think is around 400ft. This law enables you to prevent unwanted intrusions into your airspace such as cranes…and drones (albeit you may never be able to discover the owner of an intrusive drone under current technology but this is about to change).
And there is nothing to stop you photographing your own house from your own airspace using your own drone and using the images commercially. The new regulations should make that a lot clearer.
but not based entirely on fact. You, and every land or building owner, does own the airspace above it. In the UK that used to be to infinity (inScotland it still does I believe) but the law was changed about 50 years ago to cap you airspace ownership to a safe height to allow air transport - which I think is around 400ft. This law enables you to prevent unwanted intrusions into your airspace such as cranes…and drones (albeit you may never be able to discover the owner of an intrusive drone under current technology but this is about to change).And there is nothing to stop you photographing your own house from your own airspace using your own drone and using the images commercially. The new regulations should make that a lot clearer.
I am in the United States, not the UK, your rules are different than ours......It is funny though, this all started for me, when I bought an RC helicopter , my idea was to learn to fly it and then put a small camera on it to check my rain gutters without climbing up that tall ladder all the time, well the helicopter crashed , never did figure out how to fly the RC copter ,what is real funny is that I had a commercial Helicopter ticket..I could fly a real helicopter , and still couldn't fly the little toy copter......then the quadcopter came out and solved all my problems, I could fly that, with the little camera I could check my rain gutters like I wanted to in the first place....Then a bunch of idiots started flying in places they were not supposed to fly, and then people started calling them DRONES, and most people associate DRONES with spying, and military use, and now people who know nothing about the hobby, want it regulated out of existence......RC aircraft have been around for decades with no problem, now they are all called drones ...You are going by UK laws and the new ones coming up, they do not affect people in the United States although some of them sound like they are going in the right direction for the hobby, here the FAA claims they control all airspace from the ground to the edge of space and if you are caught taking a video with your drone of your house and using it to promote the sale of your house, you will be arrested and fined thousands of dollars.....About three years ago they required all drone operators to register with the FAA..I was one of the first to get my FAA registration in fact at the end of this year I will have to get it renewed....I have my FAA number, my phone number and my name on every drone I own..........as far as finding the intrusive drone flyer, well they don't fly that long and the pilot is supposed to keep it in sight at all times, and all you have to do is follow it back home, it is going to be coming down in a few minutes, stay cool and have an informed discussion with the drone owner , all my neighbors know my drone and think it is cool, after I explain what I am doing and maybe even show them the video, they realize you really can't see that much detail from way up there, some of them have even gone out and bought one of their own........But remember your rules over there are a little different than our's over here, some of the ones you have I wish we had, some others we could get along without.......after all for me this is just a hobby, a toy to tinker around with.......people who go through all the hassle to get the commercial ticket, should be expected to do a far superior job than a hobby flyer......in other words, when you hire a commercial drone pilot to do a job, everything should be perfect, just like when you hire a pro photographer, there is a big difference between a hobbiest and a pro ..you get what you pay for and a commercial drone pilot should not be putting out hobbyist quality work....Nice rant
And there is nothing to stop you photographing your own house from your own airspace using your own drone and using the images commercially. The new regulations should make that a lot clearer.
Based on my research, Americans do own the airspace immediately above their property - although others may have rights to use it. This is why property developers have a right to build upwards (subject to zoning restrictions):
Do You Own the Air Above Your Home?
What isn't clear is how far that right extends. It used to be to infinity but aviation changed that. And it may be lowered further by the advance of the drones.
But even though you own it, it is still subject to laws and regulations so the FAA could regulate what is or isn't permissible above your property. You will always be able to fly your drone over your property to the height permitted by law - which is probably around 400ft - without asking for any permissions as long as you are not infringing a geo-fenced zone, eg close to an airfield, or causing a nuisance or filming nearby neighbours.
And you also have the right to prevent any drone overflying your property if you can show that it causes nuisance, distress or danger. It would be sufficient argument to say that you constantly fly your own drone above your back yard and that any other drone would represent a danger.
And with automatic geo-fencing soon to be built in to all drones above a certain weight, I think you will also be able to apply to have your land listed as a no-fly-zone so that future software updates make it impossible for other drones to fly in. There is already a No Fly Zone database but consumer drone technology hasn't yet caught up with the planned new geo-fencing tech. I don't think it's more than a year or two away though - and apparently people are already signing up.
But there is currently a lack of clarity, and the FAA isn't helping by keeping its cards close to its chest - presumably until the new drone laws come into force in most developed countries.
Your RC copter story is funny. There's obviously more to flying a drone than knowing how to fly.
Do You Own the Air Above Your Home?
What isn't clear is how far that right extends. It used to be to infinity but aviation changed that. And it may be lowered further by the advance of the drones.
But even though you own it, it is still subject to laws and regulations so the FAA could regulate what is or isn't permissible above your property. You will always be able to fly your drone over your property to the height permitted by law - which is probably around 400ft - without asking for any permissions as long as you are not infringing a geo-fenced zone, eg close to an airfield, or causing a nuisance or filming nearby neighbours.
And you also have the right to prevent any drone overflying your property if you can show that it causes nuisance, distress or danger. It would be sufficient argument to say that you constantly fly your own drone above your back yard and that any other drone would represent a danger.
And with automatic geo-fencing soon to be built in to all drones above a certain weight, I think you will also be able to apply to have your land listed as a no-fly-zone so that future software updates make it impossible for other drones to fly in. There is already a No Fly Zone database but consumer drone technology hasn't yet caught up with the planned new geo-fencing tech. I don't think it's more than a year or two away though - and apparently people are already signing up.
But there is currently a lack of clarity, and the FAA isn't helping by keeping its cards close to its chest - presumably until the new drone laws come into force in most developed countries.
Your RC copter story is funny. There's obviously more to flying a drone than knowing how to fly.
Last edited:
It is a little different, flying a RC helicopter or RC airplane from outside the aircraft, when flying the real helicopter and airplane I was sitting inside and aware of everything it was doing, I could feel the aircraft and what it was about to do, and make it do what I wanted it to do, I flew in thunderstorms and hail storms , I was the foul weather pilot....but if the wind is over 9 or 10 MPH my quadcopter will remain indoors.......it can go away by it self, and I could lose it.....at least in the helicopter and airplane, I went with it, and always got home safely....the trick was...do not panic, stay calm and work it out...that is what I like about the Q500 4K I have...if I get confused or something, I just let go of the controls and it will just hover there and wait for me to catch up, and bring it home, or it will come home and land by it's self.......I loved flying and at my age this is the only way I can still enjoy a form of flying, at least until the regulations take this away from me too.......Have a wonderful weekend and many hours of enjoying your drone flying...fly safe and smart........
PatR
Premium Pilot
bb1040,
When you were flying full scale there were, and still are, several rules for minimum “safe” altitude, defined by population density on the ground. The lowest altitude for unpopulated areas was quite low being the altitude at which a safe landing could be accomplished after a power unit (engine) failed. Associated with that is the requirement to provide 500’ separation from any person or structure. In theory and fact, under such conditions flight at an altitude that just cleared the ground could be safe for a pilot with exceptional piloting ability. Not smart for sure but a pilot flying low over the desert in class E airspace that experienced an engine failure and landed without bending the airframe would have been operating legally.
As for our personal property, the Supreme Court ruled on a case in, I believe 1949, where property owners were granted sole use of the airspace above their property up to a height the could reasonable use. The way they defined that left the hard altitude undefined and pretty much limited it by the type of structures or trees on the property. However, the FAA defines how any type of aerial navigation can be performed in any airspace.
Lacking a definition of a hard altitude for property owners, a lot of civil LEA’s consider 200’ a cap of private property rights and therefore use 200’ as the minimum altitude they fly manned aerial surveillance missions. The government indirectly supported that altitude through a case over a low level over flight of a property in Washington state where they observed an illegal marijuana grow and used that “ in plain sight” observation to perform a ground search and busted the property owner. The courts ruled the cops were operating legally during their over flight and therefore had probable cause afterwards.
So the way things stand at the moment, as property we are likely capped with a 200’ airspace limit on our property unless we have some feature that rises higher than that to justify a higher limit.
Where image rights of private property and people are concerned there are a bunch of copyright laws that grant property owners and people considerable rights to control what can be published relative to them and their property in public commercialized media. Fortunately for a lot of those that put stuff on YouTube, most are not aware of them. In California they take things a step further with an “anti paparazzi” civil code which even limits drones without a camera operated near people and their activities.
A larger problem we have is the lack of direct involvement from small drone operators and aerial modelers in the national and local legislative process. Legislators generally make little sense when they create laws, except in the protection of interests for large corporations, their lobbyists, and government agencies are concerned. Such is the case with the development of drone regulations, where airspace rights of corporate aerospace and government agencies will trample the rights of property owners and the small aerial operator. Look at the waiver CNN and a Sacramento government agency have been granted to fly directly over people. Law enforcement agencies are being granted blanket CoA’s covering entire cities with the same permission, along with max altitudes up to 1000’ for drone operations. CoA’s for drones having weapons capabilities operated by the National Guard ate being operated over East Coast cities. We have a very serious problem and our lack of involvement is giving the FAA, our government, and corporations carte blanch in making laws that will strangle us. As the AMA is prohibited from political lobbying by their non profit charter they are effectively useless in protecting us.
When you were flying full scale there were, and still are, several rules for minimum “safe” altitude, defined by population density on the ground. The lowest altitude for unpopulated areas was quite low being the altitude at which a safe landing could be accomplished after a power unit (engine) failed. Associated with that is the requirement to provide 500’ separation from any person or structure. In theory and fact, under such conditions flight at an altitude that just cleared the ground could be safe for a pilot with exceptional piloting ability. Not smart for sure but a pilot flying low over the desert in class E airspace that experienced an engine failure and landed without bending the airframe would have been operating legally.
As for our personal property, the Supreme Court ruled on a case in, I believe 1949, where property owners were granted sole use of the airspace above their property up to a height the could reasonable use. The way they defined that left the hard altitude undefined and pretty much limited it by the type of structures or trees on the property. However, the FAA defines how any type of aerial navigation can be performed in any airspace.
Lacking a definition of a hard altitude for property owners, a lot of civil LEA’s consider 200’ a cap of private property rights and therefore use 200’ as the minimum altitude they fly manned aerial surveillance missions. The government indirectly supported that altitude through a case over a low level over flight of a property in Washington state where they observed an illegal marijuana grow and used that “ in plain sight” observation to perform a ground search and busted the property owner. The courts ruled the cops were operating legally during their over flight and therefore had probable cause afterwards.
So the way things stand at the moment, as property we are likely capped with a 200’ airspace limit on our property unless we have some feature that rises higher than that to justify a higher limit.
Where image rights of private property and people are concerned there are a bunch of copyright laws that grant property owners and people considerable rights to control what can be published relative to them and their property in public commercialized media. Fortunately for a lot of those that put stuff on YouTube, most are not aware of them. In California they take things a step further with an “anti paparazzi” civil code which even limits drones without a camera operated near people and their activities.
A larger problem we have is the lack of direct involvement from small drone operators and aerial modelers in the national and local legislative process. Legislators generally make little sense when they create laws, except in the protection of interests for large corporations, their lobbyists, and government agencies are concerned. Such is the case with the development of drone regulations, where airspace rights of corporate aerospace and government agencies will trample the rights of property owners and the small aerial operator. Look at the waiver CNN and a Sacramento government agency have been granted to fly directly over people. Law enforcement agencies are being granted blanket CoA’s covering entire cities with the same permission, along with max altitudes up to 1000’ for drone operations. CoA’s for drones having weapons capabilities operated by the National Guard ate being operated over East Coast cities. We have a very serious problem and our lack of involvement is giving the FAA, our government, and corporations carte blanch in making laws that will strangle us. As the AMA is prohibited from political lobbying by their non profit charter they are effectively useless in protecting us.
Last edited:
PatR
Premium Pilot
This is not pleasing at all as it is exactly what DJI has been lobbying for in the U.S. by establishing geo fencing it provides DJI the opportunity to lobby for a geo fence system design that follows what they currently use (if such is not already incorporated in the new law) and would put companies that refused to buy software license from DJI out of business. In effect, that would give DJI a government legislated monopoly on drone software. It might appear a lot of money was spent buying your lawmakers.
PatR
Premium Pilot
bb1040,
A little off topic but anecdotal in reference to learning to fly model helicopters. Before the advent of RC autopilots I used to teach people how to fly RC. Like you I am a full scale pilot but learned RC before going full scale. The hardest people to teach RC, and those that were the least successful, were full scale pilots. Many could not get passed the lack of being in the aircraft to determine correct control inputs for the situation. Logically we might think full scale pilots would have it easier learning RC but the opposite was more prevalent.
A little off topic but anecdotal in reference to learning to fly model helicopters. Before the advent of RC autopilots I used to teach people how to fly RC. Like you I am a full scale pilot but learned RC before going full scale. The hardest people to teach RC, and those that were the least successful, were full scale pilots. Many could not get passed the lack of being in the aircraft to determine correct control inputs for the situation. Logically we might think full scale pilots would have it easier learning RC but the opposite was more prevalent.
With national and aviation security on the line, surely no government is going to give DJI - or any private commercial outfit - ownership of the geofencing system?
rdonson
Premium Pilot
@PatR may have understated the legislative process in the US. The laws are typically actually written by staff and heavily influenced by lobbyists. Our actual members of congress generally only get briefed on what is in the bill that will become law. Often they don't even go that far as the party may dictate or heavily influence their vote without their "need" to read the proposed law.
Depending on the agency that are "responsible" you may have a political appointee in charge who knows nothing about the mission of the agency. Case in point the "acting" head of the FAA is an appointee with a background in the industry. The FAA itself is under the Transportation Dept which is a cabinet post with the leader determined by the president of the US. Elaine Chou heads the Transportation dept and is also married to the majority leader of the US Senate.
All of this is neither good nor bad but often confusing. Its a soup sandwich that Americans put up with.
Depending on the agency that are "responsible" you may have a political appointee in charge who knows nothing about the mission of the agency. Case in point the "acting" head of the FAA is an appointee with a background in the industry. The FAA itself is under the Transportation Dept which is a cabinet post with the leader determined by the president of the US. Elaine Chou heads the Transportation dept and is also married to the majority leader of the US Senate.
All of this is neither good nor bad but often confusing. Its a soup sandwich that Americans put up with.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Perhaps change “put up with” to allow. We could correct that but few seem to understand how our government is supposed to work...
As for our new appointed FAA director, his history is being retired Air Force and retired airline pilot/ALPA member. Not too hard to guess where favoritism will be provided. Air Force flight ops is heavy on documented regulation. If not specifically permitted it’s prohibited. Airline carrier ops are not much different. Your freedom in flight is pretty much bound by a policy of always check the procedural documents covering the condition and if a procedure is not present never do anything without permission. If there is no published procedure to prevent a crash, your backside is covered if you crash.
As for our new appointed FAA director, his history is being retired Air Force and retired airline pilot/ALPA member. Not too hard to guess where favoritism will be provided. Air Force flight ops is heavy on documented regulation. If not specifically permitted it’s prohibited. Airline carrier ops are not much different. Your freedom in flight is pretty much bound by a policy of always check the procedural documents covering the condition and if a procedure is not present never do anything without permission. If there is no published procedure to prevent a crash, your backside is covered if you crash.
I could do just about anything with the airplane and helicopter,they were like an extension of my body ,but just could not get the hang of flying the RCs I had no connection with them....until the advanced quads came out and I was brave enough to try one....I went through 5 drones without GPS ,before I found this one, I can relax when I am flying it..........I fly slow and keep it in sight at all times...and one thing that gave me a lot of trouble was when it was flying back towards me and everything was backwards, but this one flies slow enough and can stop to let me catch up, so I am actually getting the hang of that now, it's fun now ........In my earlier days I spent over a month buildina a real nice high winged model plane, it came out perfect, the only problem it had was a bad pilot( ME) destroyed it the first time it left the ground....
PatR
Premium Pilot
The first and last flight thing is a common malady. Done a couple myself. The most painful was a 1/3 scale SU-29 where I failed to notice the ailerons were reversed until after take off...
Similar threads
