HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
This thread is privately moderated by Gary Evans, who may elect to delete unwanted replies.
Old Dec 05, 2012, 11:01 AM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,395 Posts
That supreme court ruling is the legal foundation for Air Rights
which gives a property owner legal rights to build structures (grow tall trees etc)
into the airspace above their property for the sole purpose of enjoyment of that property.
It doesn't grant you the right to fly things above your property outside the FAA's jurisdiction,
or to deny others from flying over your property.

ian
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Old Dec 05, 2012, 04:45 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,386 Posts
FYI....
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...l-photography/

Pretty much backs up what I was saying before - if you do certain things, you're not participating in "model aviation" and are therefore operating a commercial UAV whether you are making money or not.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 06, 2012, 06:52 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,408 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasmine2501 View Post
FYI....
http://amablog.modelaircraft.org/ama...l-photography/

Pretty much backs up what I was saying before - if you do certain things, you're not participating in "model aviation" and are therefore operating a commercial UAV whether you are making money or not.
If your not following AMA rules that is exactly correct. The rule that this highlights is aerial surveillance, which is not allowed under AMA rules. This has been interpreted by some users as disallowing all aerial photography but that is not the intent. What they want to avoid is the issue of invasion of privacy as it is already a hot button with the general public. Good judgment by the pilot is the simplest way of compliance since listing out every possible example is impractical. I expect there will be some additional clarification from AMA on this issue.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 06, 2012, 11:19 AM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,395 Posts
This seemed like the perfect opportunity to clarify what they meant, and they chose not to do so.
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Dec 06, 2012, 11:30 AM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,386 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
This seemed like the perfect opportunity to clarify what they meant, and they chose not to do so.
Yeah, they've been talking about this issue for 3 years. IMO, that's long enough to have a very complete policy statement.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 06, 2012, 01:16 PM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,408 Posts
The aerial surveillance rule is only about a month old and I understand additional clarification on non-surveillance aerial video/photo is under discussion.
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 06, 2012, 02:28 PM
Suspended Account
Long Island, New York
Joined Jun 2008
6,428 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Evans View Post
The aerial surveillance rule is only about a month old and I understand additional clarification on non-surveillance aerial video/photo is under discussion.
Oh thank GOD, I was afraid our Overlords had forgotten about that. One more rule I will ignore.
I wish they would watch over the Banksters as much as they watch over us.
Tarro is offline Find More Posts by Tarro
Reply With Quote  (Disabled)
Old Dec 06, 2012, 05:51 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,386 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarro View Post
I wish they would watch over the Banksters as much as they watch over us.
"They" do... that's how they learned all the smart ways to screw people while still being legal.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 07, 2012, 07:14 PM
Registered User
branflakes's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
2,300 Posts
Tarro asked a good question i thought should be clarified here

Rc magazines feature pictures of planes in the air, the nas, and the pics are both purchased and loaded into a for profit magazine. How's that legal. I made some guesses, what's your take
branflakes is offline Find More Posts by branflakes
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 07, 2012, 07:39 PM
Registered User
Daemon's Avatar
Lakewood, Colorado
Joined Aug 2002
28,395 Posts
Presumably because the photos/videos of and information about the plane is the product
rather than the plane itself producing the product (onboard photos and video). Remember
when Olympic athletes couldn't be paid? A journalist could still take photos/videos of them
competing, and sell them, even though the athletes couldn't directly profit from that. Obviously
there's a big grey area here in the RC world with sponsorship, prizes and so forth, but it's not one
the FAA has any interest in because it's self contained.

I see two primary drivers of the FAA's current policy toward UAS and the drive for new regulations.
1. They know that if/when sUAS operation is opened up to small business commercial interests
it opens a huge floodgate, which will put a lot of new aircraft in the NAS. And whether
there is a real safety issue, or just a perception of a safety issue by other NAS stakeholders
and the public, they feel they have to keep a lid on it as best they can. They can't allow
anything until they have regulations that cover everything.

2. Big money commercial interests (largely defense contractors) really don't want the
competition, and they have a big voice with the FAA. Often they're not using technology any
more advanced than what we have, but it still costs 10x as much. They can afford to
jump through a lot of hoops, so they're not afraid to suggest to the FAA, that
everyone else should have to jump through a lot of hoops to operate commercially.

Activities surounding LoS piloted aircraft such as taking photos of and writing stories about
for profit, sponsorship deals, or competing for prize money at contests don't affect
those two drivers at all. No perceived safety issue outside the RC community, nor any
meaningful competition to big money'd commercial interests.

I think we also need to resist the urge to throw others under the bus, in an attempt to protect our
own interests. Arguments like "If they want to make FPV piloting technically illegal, then
we'll point out all the other technically illegal activities surrounding LoS piloting".
or "They claim what we do is unsafe, but I'll show you someone else doing something even more unsafe"
just drag us all down.
It'd be better to approach it the other way around.
"What they're doing is reasonable and safe, albeit technically illegal and so is what we do. Live and let live."

ian
Daemon is offline Find More Posts by Daemon
RCG Plus Member
Old Dec 07, 2012, 07:59 PM
Rocket Programmer
jasmine2501's Avatar
United States, AZ, Mesa
Joined Jul 2007
25,386 Posts
Great post, Ian, thanks! That really helps make things clear.
jasmine2501 is offline Find More Posts by jasmine2501
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 07, 2012, 08:00 PM
Registered User
branflakes's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
2,300 Posts
well said. My guess was you can profit from pictures of anything taken from the ground, terra or structure, just not from the air to the ground etc.


so the fact the rc craft were in the sky didnt matter, it was taken from the proper vantage point.
there is so much gray area man its amazing some foam and cameras caused all this insight to come about!
branflakes is offline Find More Posts by branflakes
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 07, 2012, 08:15 PM
DJO
Custom FPV Setups
DJO's Avatar
United States, CT, Stafford
Joined Oct 2011
3,549 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by branflakes View Post
there is so much gray area man its amazing some foam and cameras caused all this insight to come about!
So true... IDK what's up with the FAA but I can tell you that FPV really isn't doing much harm to the world IMHO. Foam and cameras...



Dan
DJO is offline Find More Posts by DJO
RCG Plus Member
Latest blog entry: Montreal and New Hampshire 2014
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 08, 2012, 05:33 AM
FPV Desert Beta Test Center
Mesa, Arizona
Joined Nov 2006
2,408 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by branflakes View Post
well said. My guess was you can profit from pictures of anything taken from the ground, terra or structure, just not from the air to the ground etc.


so the fact the rc craft were in the sky didnt matter, it was taken from the proper vantage point.
there is so much gray area man its amazing some foam and cameras caused all this insight to come about!
There are two differant issues.

The FAA does not allow any commercial UAV's to fly under AC 91-57. It isn't just aerial AP.
AMA does not permit aerial surveillance under rule 550 which doesn't affect regular FPV video/photo use..
Gary Evans is offline Find More Posts by Gary Evans
Last edited by Gary Evans; Dec 08, 2012 at 05:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Dec 08, 2012, 08:23 AM
Registered User
branflakes's Avatar
Joined Jan 2011
2,300 Posts
So to clarify your statement for Tarro and i...
Why are non commercial rc craft allowed to profit (owners of the craft who sell pics to mags, mags who sell pics to consumers, everyone is civilian but still profiting) being photographed in the nas?

Ian's perspective sounded accurate, do you agree

Do you agree the vantage point of the camera is the breakpoint?

Or, since rc planes aren't uavs without a camera or autopilot its an unenforceable gray area?
branflakes is offline Find More Posts by branflakes
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Range Gary Evans FPV Talk 65 Aug 10, 2008 02:27 AM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Weight Gary Evans FPV Talk 16 Jul 30, 2008 01:30 PM
Poll Proposed U.S. FPV Guidelines - Max Altitude Gary Evans FPV Talk 52 Jul 30, 2008 01:05 PM