My video and the News?

[marg2]

Hey gang Sat our friend called to help to evacuate her home due the Brazos river in TX was raising,took my p2 since my inspire is to big to carry on my car, needed as much space to carry her stuff anyway ,did a quick editing to send her the link of her house, link below, ow CBS ask me for permission to use it on her platform, I did say yes, is there any illegal wrong doing as FAA , commercial rules? asking because I,m going later with my I1 to check on her house
Thanks for the advise
Mariano

 

[msinger]

is there any illegal wrong doing as FAA , commercial rules?

Nope -- unless you shot it solely for the purpose of selling the footage to the news. And, they actually paid you for it.

 

[marg2]

Thank u just helping a frien and got the opportunity got the otiginal for her to keep incase her house is no longer there

 

[ISP5557]

Nope -- unless you shot it solely for the purpose of selling the footage to the news. And, they actually paid you for it.

I disagree. If the footage is used in a commercial purpose then it must have been collected by a person with a 333 exemption or a COA. The news agency knows that and is doing an end around the rules of them getting a 333. Just like a local law enforcement officer can not go and ask a friend to fly over Joe Blows house and look into his back yard to see if he is growing pot.

 

[marg2]

Thanks Msi video is there

 

[Meta4]

I disagree. If the footage is used in a commercial purpose then it must have been collected by a person with a 333 exemption or a COA. The news agency knows that and is doing an end around the rules of them getting a 333. Just like a local law enforcement officer can not go and ask a friend to fly over Joe Blows house and look into his back yard to see if he is growing pot.

A lot of people would think so but this seems to give the all clear for a situation just like this: FAA Says Media Can Use Drone Photos From Citizen Journalists, Not Professionals

 

[Steve@AerialImagesPro]

Apparently it IS OK, as long as the news does not compensate you and you voluntarily gave them the video.

What IS illegal, actually, is posting aerial videos on YouTube unless you're 333 exempt. Because the FAA has determined that YouTube makes money from videos, even amateur videos.

The FAA started cracking down on those videos by tracking down the video poster and asking for 333. Some have gotten some pretty stiff fines.

I'm on, the quest for that next 'viral video' is why idiots are flying their drones in places they shouldn't be and doing things they shouldn't be, so I agree with the YouTube thing.

The FAA Says You Can't Post Drone Videos on YouTube

And, unfortunately, now that you've aired on national television, I would think that video is now on the FAAs radar (no pun intended).

 

[ISP5557]

A lot of people would think so but this seems to give the all clear for a situation just like this: FAA Says Media Can Use Drone Photos From Citizen Journalists, Not Professionals

According to the FAA’s memo, “a person who wishes to operate a UAS to take pictures or videos or gather other information that would be sold to media outlets would need an FAA authorization for the operation” just like any other non-hobby use.
There is the problem, In the original post he says he took the video for unrelated hobby use so he may be good. But, this article was published in May of 2015, that is a lifetime in decision making for the FAA. Since that time they have said YouTube videos are commercial, and how is the FAA to know if you were just flying after the Tornado for fun, or gathering video to sell tomorrow. The people with 333 exemptions would be pissed if Joe blow came in and got video saying he was just flying for fun, then the next day sold the video saying he had not planned on getting paid for it when he flew. Kinda makes all that work of following the rules meaningless.

 

[Dave Stanton]

A couple of comments on this, First, the story about the the guy who flies purely as a hobby and posted his videos on YouTube, reminds me of a story I heard once about two guys, one didn't like the other guy so he reported he was a big tax cheap to the IRS. They immediately contacted the guy and said they were going to do an audit of seven years worth of his tax records and possibly prosecute him tax fraud (an old IRS scare tactic). Of course, it was all a lie. His taxes were all in order and he never ended up paying additional money to the IRS, BUT he spend thousands on a good tax attorney! So, the butt-head who started it all was happy. That's what this sounds like. Some other drone operator who is mad for what ever reason, makes a complaint to the FAA and they are just looking for excuses to regulate us as much as possible, so they go after the other poor slob. Hope you don't have any enemies or you could get burned for nothing.

Second, your comment about the network doing an "end around" may be accurate but here's what's more likely. The networks (and local stations) have cut staffs drastically in recent years as TV news viewing as decreased and they just don't have many crews any more to cover what's happening. Even if they still had huge staffs, they can't be everywhere. So, they look to "citizen journalists" for video. The key is pay or no-pay. If marg2 is getting no money for his video and doesn't use his CBS exposure to promote his drone flying, where's the problem? Seems like a good attorney could make this a 1st amendment case if the FAA got involved, arguing that restricting the use of free drone video by the news media, is a violation of free speech. We made that argument years ago when I was in television news, when a guy got video (with an old VHS camcorder) of the governor doing something he shouldn't have, gave it to our station for no compensation, and we aired it. The governor tried to get it taken off the air. When our news director said no, he tried other legal threats but our lawyers used the 1st amendment argument and won.

Even when the FAA finally gets around to creating official rules, many aspects of drone flying my end up being decided in the courts!

 

[Meta4]

But, this article was published in May of 2015, that is a lifetime in decision making for the FAA. Since that time they have said YouTube videos are commercial

That's a popular misunderstanding.
This particular myth that putting aerial videos on Youtube is commercial use just won't die.
The story comes from March 2015 when one FAA official overstepped his authority.
The FAA clarified the situation soon after.
Read all about it here:
FAA Admits That They Shouldn't Be Ordering People To Delete Drone Videos