involved and uninvolved people ?

[Pacefast]

i had a situation filming on the Thames where a barge owner wanted his barge in the Shot ? No payment involved and we discussed flying close to the barge and the small risks .
But all word of mouth so could change if anything went wrong
Is there a didclaimer form any drone pilots use for such events ?

Peter

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

With regards to the barge itself and its owner, I would have thought a written, dated and hand signed request from the barge owner would be suitable. But what of crew and passengers if any and what of other boats ?
One Henley thread comes to mind where the pilot flew the drone down river and for some reason that I can't remember lost control, the drone landed on the bow of a boat and was recovered. It had just made it past a road bridge.

 

[lensimages]

i had a situation filming on the Thames where a barge owner wanted his barge in the Shot ? No payment involved and we discussed flying close to the barge and the small risks .
But all word of mouth so could change if anything went wrong
Is there a didclaimer form any drone pilots use for such events ?

Peter

As a retired Pro Photographer I designed and made my own disclaimer / use of images/ ownership of images / bad weather disclaimer, why not do the same, cheers Len

 

[Exphantomflyer]

i had a situation filming on the Thames where a barge owner wanted his barge in the Shot ? No payment involved and we discussed flying close to the barge and the small risks .
But all word of mouth so could change if anything went wrong
Is there a didclaimer form any drone pilots use for such events ?

Peter

If its the 250g drone such as the Mini then you dont need any kind of permission to fly anywhere, if you choose to fly close to boats etc then its at your risk, as for privacy concerns there is no expected right to privacy in a public space

 

[Pacefast]

If its the 250g drone such as the Mini then you dont need any kind of permission to fly anywhere, if you choose to fly close to boats etc then its at your risk, as for privacy concerns there is no expected right to privacy in a public space

Its an Air 3 so above 250 g

 

[Felix le Chat]

If its the 250g drone such as the Mini then you dont need any kind of permission to fly anywhere, if you choose to fly close to boats etc then its at your risk, as for privacy concerns there is no expected right to privacy in a public space

Privacy concerns? Not in this instance, only applies if you deliberately target a specific individual or group with the intention of using him/her/them as a model and the primary focus of the shot. THEN you have to ask permission and get a signed waiver from the 'model'.

The drone is usually far enough away to guarantee there is no real chance of capturing personally identifiable characteristics, but even when a relatively close shot is captured of someone occupying the frame by chance, or a person walks through the frame as you take the shot: their presence is incidental (unintentional) and you do not have to seek permission to publish the image.

The correct legal term in British law is 'incidental inclusion' and applies to all forms of street photography.

 

[Pacefast]

My real question here is between uninvolved and involved ? Involved must mean that they are briefed on any risks if any involved, So make s decision on risk from an informed basis !
Then there is proof that an agreement is made and a disclaimer is signed

 

[SmilingOgre]

Not up on the laws in the Great UK, but here in the US I would simply not fly over the barge and get shots from a bit of a distance. This would pretty much mitigate crashing into the barge and incurring possible civil damage entanglement. In regard to privacy there would be no detailed images of any person(s). That would be my limitations regarding a "Free Bee" favor for the boat owner. As with anything even that strategy could become a headache if anyone on the barge wanted to have a fit. You could probably win any legal battles although that changes like the weather. Of course there's always the money involved in defense of one self.

 

[Cafguy]

Privacy concerns? Not in this instance, only applies if you deliberately target a specific individual or group with the intention of using him/her/them as a model and the primary focus of the shot. THEN you have to ask permission and get a signed waiver from the 'model'.

The drone is usually far enough away to guarantee there is no real chance of capturing personally identifiable characteristics, but even when a relatively close shot is captured of someone occupying the frame by chance, or a person walks through the frame as you take the shot: their presence is incidental (unintentional) and you do not have to seek permission to publish the image.

The correct legal term in British law is 'incidental inclusion' and applies to all forms of street photography.

Pretty much like here in the U.S.
You have the "Subjects" of your video ( stars and co-stars) then you have your "incidentals" ( people and places that would be in the frame due to being there). Incidentals such as that can be filmed because they are in public weather you are filming or not. If say you are filming the crews activities for the video then those people ( the crew )are no longer incidentals and they become subjects. The laws for filming and compensation can be tricky.

 

[Droning on and on...]

If its the 250g drone such as the Mini then you dont need any kind of permission to fly anywhere,

Untrue. In the US:

Sub-250g drones must follow all the same airspace restrictions as any other drone, or aircraft for that matter. There are plenty of places where flying is prohibited (prisons, some government buildings, TFRs, etc. etc. etc.). In some cases, permission to fly in restricted airspace can be obtained (LAANC for example).

Further, flying over uninvolved persons with a sub-250g without extra, special equipment is prohibited.

So the idea that, "250g drone such as the Mini then you dont need any kind of permission to fly anywhere" isn't quite accurate, and in the US it makes no difference in terms of where you can fly.

Only difference is you don't need to register with the FAA for recreational use, or broadcast RID. For differences, that's about it.

 

[hank970]

Just curious. Does a disclaimer offer protection against third-party claimants?

To wit: Hubby is an accomplished paddler, and he wants a video of himself and some friends coursing through some relatively mild Class II rapids in their canoes on a local and familiar watercourse, an enjoyable trip they've safely made dozens of times. Hubby contacts a long-time personal friend who has only recently been certified as a commercial pilot in accordance with the provisions of Part 107. The drone operator has not yet purchased liability insurance. However, the drone operator knows there's some risk involved, and he hastily drafts a disclaimer. Hubby and the other paddlers cheerfully sign the disclaimer acknowledging the risks of a drone flying overhead and absolving the drone operator of any liability should a malfunction or operator error result in their personal injury or death.

On the day of the flight, the drone malfunctions, falls from the sky, hits Hubby on the head, and apparently renders him unconscious. Thus disabled, Hubby slumps sideways, the canoe capsizes, and he slips beneath the water and drowns. Because he's paddling alone in the last canoe, the other paddlers are unaware of his plight, so no effort is made to rescue him.

Local and federal authorities investigate the mishap and conclude that, because the drone operator fully complied with the provisions of Party 107, Hubby's death was just an unfortunate accident. Accordingly, no charges are filed.

Months later, Hubby's aggrieved widow, who was aware in advance of Hubby's planned canoe adventure but not of the plans to shoot the video, files a suit alleging that the drone operator was the proximate cause of Hubby's death and is therefore negligent. In court, Widow tearfully relates that she and her five children have been victimized by the loss of her husband. As a third party, she wasn't afforded any opportunity to assess the risk, and further, she didn't sign any disclaimer or otherwise waive her rights. She wants compensation, because Hubby was the family's only source of income.

What's the verdict? Can a husband deprive unwitting survivors of their interests by signing a disclaimer? If the court indeed concludes that the drone operator was negligent and that Hubby's survivors are entitled to compensation, then of what value was the disclaimer?

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

Untrue. In the US:

Sub-250g drones must follow all the same airspace restrictions as any other drone, or aircraft for that matter. There are plenty of places where flying is prohibited (prisons, some government buildings, TFRs, etc. etc. etc.). In some cases, permission to fly in restricted airspace can be obtained (LAANC for example).

Further, flying over uninvolved persons with a sub-250g without extra, special equipment is prohibited.

So the idea that, "250g drone such as the Mini then you dont need any kind of permission to fly anywhere" isn't quite accurate, and in the US it makes no difference in terms of where you can fly.

Only difference is you don't need to register with the FAA for recreational use, or broadcast RID. For differences, that's about it.

This would not be recreational

 

[lensimages]

Just curious. Does a disclaimer offer protection against third-party claimants?

To wit: Hubby is an accomplished paddler, and he wants a video of himself and some friends coursing through some relatively mild Class II rapids in their canoes on a local and familiar watercourse, an enjoyable trip they've safely made dozens of times. Hubby contacts a long-time personal friend who has only recently been certified as a commercial pilot in accordance with the provisions of Part 107. The drone operator has not yet purchased liability insurance. However, the drone operator knows there's some risk involved, and he hastily drafts a disclaimer. Hubby and the other paddlers cheerfully sign the disclaimer acknowledging the risks of a drone flying overhead and absolving the drone operator of any liability should a malfunction or operator error result in their personal injury or death.

On the day of the flight, the drone malfunctions, falls from the sky, hits Hubby on the head, and apparently renders him unconscious. Thus disabled, Hubby slumps sideways, the canoe capsizes, and he slips beneath the water and drowns. Because he's paddling alone in the last canoe, the other paddlers are unaware of his plight, so no effort is made to rescue him.

Local and federal authorities investigate the mishap and conclude that, because the drone operator fully complied with the provisions of Party 107, Hubby's death was just an unfortunate accident. Accordingly, no charges are filed.

Months later, Hubby's aggrieved widow, who was aware in advance of Hubby's planned canoe adventure but not of the plans to shoot the video, files a suit alleging that the drone operator was the proximate cause of Hubby's death and is therefore negligent. In court, Widow tearfully relates that she and her five children have been victimized by the loss of her husband. As a third party, she wasn't afforded any opportunity to assess the risk, and further, she didn't sign any disclaimer or otherwise waive her rights. She wants compensation, because Hubby was the family's only source of income.

What's the verdict? Can a husband deprive unwitting survivors of their interests by signing a disclaimer? If the court indeed concludes that the drone operator was negligent and that Hubby's survivors are entitled to compensation, then of what value was the disclaimer?

The husband signed signed a disclaimer but the drone malfunctions ? So it was not due to negligence on the part of the drone pilot so not guilty . If any person dies as a result of the actions of someone piloting a drone , then there is a case for the relevant authorities to take appropriate action, then his next of kin can take that person to court and if they win Guilty

 

[Cafguy]

To wit: Hubby is an accomplished paddler, and he wants a video of himself and some friends coursing through some relatively mild Class II rapids in their canoes on a local and familiar watercourse, an enjoyable trip they've safely made dozens of times. Hubby contacts a long-time personal friend who has only recently been certified as a commercial pilot in accordance with the provisions of Part 107. The drone operator has not yet purchased liability insurance. However, the drone operator knows there's some risk involved, and he hastily drafts a disclaimer. Hubby and the other paddlers cheerfully sign the disclaimer acknowledging the risks of a drone flying overhead and absolving the drone operator of any liability should a malfunction or operator error result in their personal injury or death.

The pilot would not be financially liable for the malfunction BUT Their part in the very ill panned adventure would most likely make them in part liable. First They plan to film this man "shooting the Rapids But ...shouldn't there be people close by and ready if something goes wrong? That's very poor planning on everybody's part, Drone crash or not. If it were for commercial purposes I would not do it without some sort of insurance. WAY to many factors! also this pilot would be very stupid if they did not fly at a safe distance and use ZOOM.
As far as "hastily" drafting a disclaimer ,well you can do it BUT in a case like yours the Lawers would chew it up in court. However I think the poor widows only recourse would be to sue the maker of the Drone.