(especially a commercial operator like myself) Being able to walk away having them no longer being "afraid or leery" of drones is a great feeling and I think if more drone operators would do this every chance they get, we could help change the negative image that John Q Public has towards commercial/hobby drones alike. IMO helping to "educate" the public is a responsibility that comes with being a drone operator in this day and age. I have found that most people are very accommodating once you explain to them what you're doing and I usually end up spending a good 20-30 minutes talking to them about my drone. (as others have stated, "flying over it" is another story) Out of the hundreds of businesses and properties I've filmed, I've only had a couple of occasions in which the property owner didn't want me filming their property. The law states that you need written consent so I created a document which I have the home/landowner sign if I intend to film their property. I fly commercially in Idaho Falls and have never had a problem. None of this law applies to flying around natural landmarks, parks, mountains ect where people are not present, A place like Twin Falls snake river and Shoshone Falls is totally legal to fly and film. I don't think anybody will ever get trouble from a cop because they are flying at a park and people end up as little pixels in the video. This is really grey area, because certainly the intent of the law is to prevent people from invading privacy, If they intended to prevent people from using drones they would just ban the unlicensed use of drones outside of private property. "without such individual’s written consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph or recording." And furthermore this does not include PUBLIC spaces such as state parks and federal BLM land in the state. This would not include anything being filmed by happenstance I.E people on the ground flying high above. "specifically targeted persons or specifically targeted private property" I do not see how they could determine that I actually engaged in "photography" unless they had a warrant. I do believe it would be nearly impossible to determine that my purpose was to publish or publicly disseminate, unless I actually did that.įailing all of that, flying drones is legal. The other clause in the law is that you can't photograph a person or property "for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph or recording". Also with wildlife, it would be obvious that I'm specifically targeting them (and they are not property of anyone who could sue me), and therefore, cannot be specifically targeting someone's property or their person. In my own words, those individuals or property, are incidentally targeted. If the subject of my photo or a video is a person or their property who has provided consent, then I'm obviously specifically targeting them and can't be specifically targeting anyone in the background. First is the "specifically targeted" verbiage. After much consideration, there are two aspects of the law that I feel like gives me a moral out, if not a technical letter-of-the-law out as well. Click to expand.Yeah, the wording is wishy-washy enough where I could fall victim to the interpretation of whoever, but really all I have to do is get to a point where I feel like I'm compliant with the law.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |