|
||
|
Quote:
Wow! That's a major showstopper right there. It's almost impossible to not see many peoples and properties from the air no matter where you fly or which direction you point the camera. That is true death to FPV because it means 99.9% of all published FPV videos simply cannot comply with that rule and if AMA is the only recognized "community based organization" under the new modelling exemption then their rules are law. They can go after your published videos themselves. ian |
|
|
Last edited by Daemon; Nov 02, 2012 at 03:40 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we need a new community based organization - AMA is spread too thin. I've mentioned this before. AMA just can't keep up with the world - their magazine is a joke, and the web site isn't much better. You're lucky if the AMA is less than 6 months out of date on something.
|
|
|
|
||
Thread OP
|
Quote:
|
|
|
||
|
|
Thread OP
|
I read it that video and pics are fine as long as it isn't done for the reason described. Few things will get people as upset as aerial surveillance.
The sky isn't falling Chicken Little. AMA 550 now says: "The use of imaging technology on radio control model aircraft with the capability of obtaining high-resolution photographs and/or video, or using any types of sensors, for the collection, retention, or dissemination of aerial surveillance data/information on individuals, homes, businesses or property, is strictly prohibited by the AMA unless expressed written permission is obtained from the individuals, property owners or managers." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
to kill all aerial video recording, but that's absolutely effect it has. Even if it were sloppy language, as soon as you publish a video on the net which includes other peoples and properties (which is virtually all of them), they'll probably consider the line crossed. I think this was very intentional. Someone within the AMA pointed out that they take the most heat from controversial FPV videos published on the internet and they realized that this new rule was a way to 1. Distance themselves further from said controversial FPV videos. 2. Simply stop people from publishing FPV videos in the wild, once the AMA rules carry the force of law under the new amateur modelling exemption. They might argue that if you operate within the confines of a club field and you have permission from the field owner/manager that you're ok, thus forcing FPV pilots to come fly at club fields if they want to record/publish videos. Or, that you can fly wherever you want as long as you don't record and ultimately publish the video. Sort of a "If we don't see evidence of it on the net, we don't care what you do." stance. And if you do happen to obtain permission from a property owner who has enough land that you can fly over it without seeing/recording anyone else's property, then they're of course fine with that. Almost nobody here has that luxury though. ian |
|
|
||
|
||
|
Quote:
dissemination = publishing any video on YouTube "individuals, homes, businesses or property" = subjects of *every* FPV video ever published. ian |
|
|
||
|
||
|
Quote:
Webster definition: "close watch kept over someone or something (as by a detective); also : supervision" I agree this is sloppy drafting. It's probably intended to avoid the negative PR that is building surrounding drone surveillance. They can always say "it's against our policy." But this risks applying to a lot of other activity. I would have thought having a non-commercial purpose required by 550 was enough. |
|
Latest blog entry: (Archive of) Information on FAA...
|
||
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me what interest the AMA has in protecting the privacy interests of non-members? (Especially when the Supreme Court has said there is no such privacy interest.) It's not a safety issue, it's not a radio control issue. How can it be possible to violate AMA policy if my plane has a camera taking pictures -- but be in compliance if the same exact plane, flown the same exact way, does not have a camera?
This goes far beyond AMA's mandate. AMA should be protecting its members; now it is on record with a policy saying we would be infringing someone's privacy interests if we take aerial pictures. That doesn't protect members; it hurts members by exposing them to (vexatious) litigation from just about anyone within range of an airborne camera. As far as I know, not even the FAA has a policy against taking non-commercial pictures from an airplane or helicopter. This development is very disturbing even if you read 550 very narrowly because it suggests the AMA is overreaching into legal areas that go far beyond model safety and flying site locations. |
Latest blog entry: (Archive of) Information on FAA...
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
I agree with Daemon though, regardless of intent, this can be used to suppress any FPV videos not filmed at an official AMA field. I think it's ridiculous that the FAA has essentially handed the AMA regulatory power over model flight (or at least they will as soon as the other draconian rules about model flight arrive). If we don't follow the AMA's semi-lax rules we must follow the FAA's insane ones. There's only two choices and one of them will be set in stone, the other will be fluid with whatever a non-government entity decides on a whim what is safe. It's crazy that somehow the real power to regulate us has somehow been transferred to the AMA from the government. Oh, and there's no way the FAA will accept a FPV "community based-organization," they've really twisted that definition to fully describe the AMA while not actually saying the words "AMA." -Blues |
|
|
||
|
|
|
I think you guys are taking that language too literally. It's just the AMA's stance on the whole privacy debate thing. Basically as long as you're not using an RC plane to intentionally spy on people, you're fine. I really don't think they're talking about incidental capture of images of buildings and people just flying around taking scenic aerial footage.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread OP
|
But you left out aerial surveillance data/information with clearly is the subject of the statement. I haven't seen any UTube example of aerial surveillance.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
||
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | |||||
Category | Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Discussion | Petition the FAA to revise the restrictive laws placed on model aircraft! | Decroxx | Model Aircraft & Drone Advocacy | 18 | Apr 03, 2015 03:38 PM |
Discussion | New Forum Suggestion - Model Aircraft Regulations | mjgravina | New Forum Requests | 0 | Feb 04, 2015 07:10 PM |
Alert | New FAA TFR prohibits model aircraft/RPAS flight within 3nm of large sporting events | Ronan87 | Multirotor Drone Talk | 8 | Nov 05, 2014 01:46 AM |
Discussion | Deadline to have your say in FAA guidlines for Model aircraft is today Sept 23 | bravetiger73 | Multirotor Drone Talk | 0 | Sep 23, 2014 07:18 PM |
Discussion | The AMA / FAA model aircraft and sUAS regulation struggle continues in the USA | RolandS888 | UAV - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles | 49 | Mar 02, 2011 10:29 AM |