A “drone” by dictionary definition is a stingless male, honeybee that produces no honey and lives just to mate with the queen bee. Those are not the drones we’re talking about here. The drones in this piece can produce honey, for photographers, in the way of hard cash.
The FAA has restrictions on the altitude – typically 400 ft. – at which hobbyists and others can fly their drones or mini-copters. These restrictions are in place to ensure the safety of passenger flights by plane or helicopter. Police, park and fire services, emergency services, the FBI, highway departments and the like daily employ drones for law enforcement and/or public safety issues.
But at price tags as low as $300 drones are already in widespread use by ordinary citizens throughout the land. Farmers employ them to assess growth patterns or stages of their crops and others employ them for far less benign reasons. Some shooters use them to cover weddings, news events, ball games, county fairs, or provide private security to homes or businesses. The actual number of hidden drones with cameras can only be estimated. Issues of privacy and safety have sprouted nationwide and for the most part have been treated locally.
For example, the Texas House of Representatives approved a bill criminalizing the use of drones and unmanned aircraft to indiscriminately photograph or conduct surveillance on private property. The Texas Senate then rapidly amended the bill to permit the photographing by and of police officers while on police business. In other words a citizen could not be prevented from using a drone to photograph the questionable conduct of police officers – think Rodney King. Oregon’s statute is fairly similar to that of Texas
43 states are considering legislation regarding the private use of drone photography. Whether a real estate broker could create and employ drone footage in connection with promoting the sale of real estate depends largely on just what state of the Union that realtor calls home. Here again there is no one size fits all answer as to whether it is legal for you to employ a drone to create photos of your neighborhood or your neighbors. State laws control these issues and many states have yet to include the word “drone” in any legislation not written for public employees.
Businesses based in whole or in part on the creation of aerial drone photography are far too numerous to list here. We urge all photographers to check your local laws. Regardless of what your views on these issues may be, get involved in the legislative process so that these photo related issues are not left up to politicians who can negatively affect your right to make a living and/or protect your privacy. Don’t get stung by a drone politician.
#1 by Ken Brown on September 2, 2013 - 12:26 am
Regardless of State statues, the use of UAV’s for commercial photography is banned by the FAA. Federal regulations are expected to be in place by late 2014 or early 2015 after which time, the use of certain UAV’s may be allowed for commercial purposes subject to State and local restrictions. Real estate photographers all over the country are keeping a close eye on this topic. The ability to provide low cost aerial photos of a property for sale is going to be a popular (and profitable) upsell. In the mean time, we are all watching the FAA’s website for any mention of new commercial UAV regulations.
In the mean time, companies advertising services can and have been cited. There have also be a few accidents recently that are drawing attention to the use of UAV’s commercially and may impact regulations. A downside to going rouge at this point is that insurance companies have a clause nullifying coverage if the claim for coverage occurs while engaged in an illegal act.
http://newstalk870.am/runaway-drone-crashes-into-wedding-couple-hits-groom-in-head-video/
http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/26/4659698/drone-crashes-into-spectators-at-virginia-bull-run
I expect that a license and a special insurance rider will be required when it becomes legal to use UAV’s for commercial photography. In the mean time, Pole-Aerial-Photography and shooting in person from a commercially piloted aircraft are the best bet to avoid a stiff fine.
#2 by Wayne on September 2, 2013 - 2:06 pm
It would seem that a kite http://www.arch.ced.berkeley.edu/kap/kaptoc.html would be a way to avoid regulation on powered unmanned aircraft. However with both balloons and kites there is a problem with getting it where it is wanted as the direction of the wind is going to be of great significance.
#3 by Edward C. Greenberg on September 10, 2013 - 5:40 pm
Enterprising folks inspired by things both malevolent and benevolent, have strapped cameras to feral animals known to roam over property lines. Some believe that this practice does not constitute trespassing as hitching a camera to one’s own domesticated dog or cat might.
Whether the images shot by such animals standing on or near private or public property could subject the person who affixed the camera to the animal, to civil and/or criminal penalties varies from state to state. The issue is clearly not clear, in many states. There are some very valid reasons for affixing cameras to animals whether on land, in the sea or up in the air. The military has been doing it for years and more than a few photographers have refined those techniques.
#4 by Edward C. Greenberg on September 13, 2013 - 6:36 pm
Wayne – some of the drone statutes refer to “aerial photography” which would include imagery taken from kites or any other device not affixed permanently to the ground. Other statutes seem to imply that aerial photography shot from the top of say a tall building, tower or monument would still qualify as aerial photography. Very, very few professional photographers have been elected to public office. Politicians know next to nothing about photography except that they like their pictures taken. As a result, the wording of some of these proposed laws is far, far from clear.