News recording?

[Dronecation]

Hugely different situation than a car accident. The hurricane presented an immediate search and rescue situation that private drone operators can help with enormously.

Rather than the outright ban, an organized, coordinated effort might have saved lives.

Obviously different, which is why I wrote a 'similar' situation... if you read the article, there are many pertinent points worth seeking out that drone flyers can contemplate in regards to this discussion.
To quote:
"Interfering with emergency response efforts may result in fines or criminal prosecution," FAADroneZone wrote

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

I would love to believe the same is true about drones, if an emergency helicopter is coming, move your drone. But we all know that won't work; it's not that simple. So let's come up with something that *will* work. If you don't move your car and you freeze up with the fire truck behind you, you aren't automatically charged with the "damage" from the fire or the resulting "death" or anything absurd like that. Instead you are probably charged with "failure to yield" or something similar and unless it was intentional and you directly blocked or impeded or screwed up badly, it's not a crime. We share the road and the emergency crews have the tools to navigate safely but at the same time, they realize they don't *own* the road. They do the best they can and sometimes, **** happens even after we've provided every single motorist on the highway with training and instruction on how to deal with emergency vehicles. Every fire truck responding to an emergency is delayed in some way by another motorist and it's usually unintentional. But it's not automatically a crime. Often it's an infraction and there are literally a million of them and it's getting worse, not better.

Contrast that with the drone flyer who have no rights to be in the airspace, have no business there in the first place, plus there's a law against it during a TFR. That's the difference and that's one example why there's no reason to come up with a "solution." Unfortunately this isn't the best we can do; we can do better. I understand there are people in a helicopter and there are no people in a UAV. And I'll leave it at that without expounding because I had a long post, but I erased it for now.

You seem to speak of American road rules whereas I speak of UK road rules in reponse to msinger's post.
The two jurisdictions are not governed by the same rules.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Not true. The free press in a free country will not be required to get a part 107 in order to gather news that is of public interest.

I have no idea about the rules governing flights by your 'free press'.

But all that I have read suggests that private individuals flying a drone for reasons other than it being a recreational flight are required to have part 107. Indeed the OP explicitly mentions the pilot having part 107, "They are part 107 certified", in text line 5 of their post.

If you think differently then please post link to, or excerpts from, relevant documentation.

It would be interesting to get/see @Vic Moss 's view on this.
Frankly I am far more inclined to believe what he says than what you say.

 

[MS Coast]

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives *anyone* the right to record *any* situation in the public especially if it is the interest of the public.

That is not correct. While generally true, there are important exceptions.

Here's one example, relevant to the OP's what-if question.

"Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations."

Photographers' Rights

Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right – and that includes federal buildings, transportation facilities, and police and other government officials carrying out their duties. Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of...

www.aclusocal.org

Also, having the right to do something does not mean it's the right thing to do. We passed an motorcycle accident on the interstate yesterday and I was disgusted by the people who slowed to a crawl to gaped at the injured people bleeding on the pavement.

 

[mavic3usa]

I have no idea about the rules governing your 'free press'.
But all that I have read suggests that private individual flying a drone for reasons other that a recereational flight are required to have part 107, indeed teh OP ecplicitly mentions the pilot having part 107 "They are part 107 certified" in text line 5 of their post.

If you think differently then please post link or excerpts from relevant documentation.
It would be interesting to get/see @Vic Moss 's view on this.
Frankly I am far more inclined to believe what he says than what you say.

Sure, no problem. Just to clarify, it's probably a good idea to get your part 107 if you want to engage and succeed in your professional journalism career with the company's drone. You maybe want to get a college degree and some other things as well. These will help advance your career and maybe open the doors to a few more advantages such as waivers, special training, extra pay, etc.

However,

Unless the Supreme Court of the United States tells me otherwise by saying: "The free press in a free country IS required to get a part 107 in order to gather news that is of public interest" then I'm not going to listen.

 

[mavic3usa]

That is not correct. While generally true, there are important exceptions.

Here's one example, relevant to the OP's what-if question.

"Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations."

Here's we go with the fire in the crowded theater analogy.

I made a general comment. It's not sweeping and I didn't say "no exceptions."

Of course, dude, nobody is allowed to interfere with the police using a drone or anything else. The press don't have the right to go into the police evidence locker and recording the serial numbers and all the other ridiculous situation somebody might come up with trying to prove the press have to obey the police.

C'mon, seriously? Is that all you have?

So so so so much nitpicking....just in time for the weekend I guess.

I have to right to record, I just have to do it legally. I thought you knew that? Why don't you know that *all* of your rights have to be done legally? Why can't you accept there are minor exceptions?

Please don't derail this conversation.

 

[MS Coast]

Just to clarify, it's probably a good idea to get your part 107 if you want to engage and succeed in your professional journalism career with the company's drone.

It's more than a good idea; it's a requirement for anyone using a drone as part of their job.

 

[MS Coast]

Here's we go with the fire in the crowded theater analogy.

I made a general comment. It's not sweeping and I didn't say "no exceptions."

Of course, dude, nobody is allowed to interfere with the police using a drone or anything else. The press don't have the right to go into the police evidence locker and recording the serial numbers and all the other ridiculous situation somebody might come up with trying to prove the press have to obey the police.

C'mon, seriously? Is that all you have?

So so so so much nitpicking....just in time for the weekend I guess.

I have to right to record, I just have to do it legally. I thought you knew that? Why don't you know that *all* of your rights have to be done legally? Why can't you accept there are minor exceptions?

Please don't derail this conversation.

"The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives *anyone* the right to record *any* situation in the public especially if it is the interest of the public."

That statement is false. It's potentially highly misleading for drone operators who take it as being reliable.

 

[mavic3usa]

Just because you can legally do it doesn't mean you should.

Also, having the right to do something does not mean it's the right thing to do. We passed an motorcycle accident on the interstate yesterday and I was disgusted by the people who slowed to a crawl to gaped at the injured people bleeding on the pavement.

For the drone question, not for the motorcycle drama question, I ask the same question:

Agreed. But that can't be the final answer, you know that right?

I'm looking for solutions and answers to the drone question. Got any?

(I don't have answers to what to do about gapers and gawkers).

 

[lensimages]

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives *anyone* the right to record *any* situation in the public especially if it is the interest of the public. You don't need a permit from the government and you don't need permission from the government. You can use your eyeballs, a camera, or a drone as long as you follow the existing laws and that includes NOT flying under a TFR. I believe there is a rule about interfering as well.

There is no such thing as the *news* in this context since everyone has the capacity regardless if you work for the tv station, the local newspapers, or you have a press badge or not; doesn't matter. When I check the drone rules, I see nothing about needing a part 107, crossing over traffic, maintaining 100 feet, vehicle location, and as a recreational pilot, nothing in part 107, etc. Just follow the rules like you would do every other day of the week and you are fine. Just because you pull out a drone doesn't mean you now fall under some special authority or special circumstance. Until someone comes up with a workable process, this is all we have to go with. "Leave the area and don't come back" won't work and anybody who depends on that is not helping IMO.

At this point, that's all you need to worry about and maybe one day the authorities will figure out how to safely integrate such drone activities into the situation instead of trying to eliminate them which is a non-starter. The same was said and tried with news helicopters, the same can be done with drones as well. If for some reason it cannot be figured out, I have some ideas.

My comments apply only to the hypothetical situation that was brought up in the OP; nothing else is implied or inferred.

Would you not just try to help these victims rather than can I fly my drone. Cheers Len

 

[mavic3usa]

It's more than a good idea; it's a requirement for anyone using a drone as part of their job.

Agreed, it could very well be a requirement by your boss for anyone using a drone as part of their job to get a part 107. Hopefully it is because it's a good idea and it matters not the motivation of your boss or your company; however, my point is:

If I am a recreational flyer and I consider it my job (or not) to go out and use my drone to gather news interests (let's say for example, I use my drone to record the flag raising at the local post office on a daily basis), I am protected by the 1st and that includes being required to first obtain a part 107 before I do it. Doesn't mean you can't go get one, many solid patriotic law-abiding citizen buckle under *all the time*. However, I am protected....and that means in a court of law, not on the streets or in the field or on paper.

 

[mavic3usa]

Would you not just try to help these victims rather than can I fly my drone. Cheers Len

Yes, help first; fly drone second. Agreed.

 

[mavic3usa]

"The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States gives *anyone* the right to record *any* situation in the public especially if it is the interest of the public."

All you need to do is understand the statement in the totality of the context of this entire thread and my entire post.

It's my opinion, it's not a declaration. It doesn't need to be nitpicked to death or "repealed." I don't have to print "there are exceptions" in everything I say and then list them out,

Focus on:
*Anyone*: you, me, everybody....you don't have to be "the press" or carry credentials
*Any*: When in public where there is no expectation of privacy, if I can see it with my eyes, I can record it with my drone.

Matters of public interest, it means something to the free press in America.

I'm looking for and working on solutions, you got any? Or just a bunch of criticisms which is why we have problems, nobody wants to solve anything; just talk down on it or just prohibit it and hope it goes away.

 

[MS Coast]

Agreed, it could very well be a requirement by your boss for anyone using a drone as part of their job to get a part 107. Hopefully it is because it's a good idea and it matters not the motivation of your boss or your company; however, my point is:

If I am a recreational flyer and I consider it my job (or not) to go out and use my drone to gather news interests (let's say for example, I use my drone to record the flag raising at the local post office on a daily basis), I am protected by the 1st and that includes being required to first obtain a part 107 before I do it. Doesn't mean you can't go get one, many solid patriotic law-abiding citizen buckle under *all the time*. However, I am protected....and that means in a court of law, not on the streets or in the field or on paper.

There's no "could very well be" to it. The FAA makes the rule, not the person's supervisor. If you're using a drone in your paid work, you need a Part 107 certificate.

 

[GFields]

This thread has got way out of control. Consider it closed.