2 Pro Permission....

[Winston Bull]

This image is from DJI's own website (DJI Mavic 3 - Imaging Above Everything - DJI) and God bless 'em for the new toy tool, but I have to say my first thought on this was: "Did they really get everyone's permission to be involved in that shot....??" There were several other shots where I could only reflect on the aphorism that it certainly helps to know the right people....

But on to the celebration...! NEW TOOL....!

 

[Deleted member 103366]

Paid extras perhaps? Plus....what jurisdiction?
The group is a bit concentrated and isolated to be a random photo.
I once knew a bloke who appeared, as a father, with kids and wife, is an advertising campaign and, at the time, whilst I am sure he was practising the baby making process with gusto, he most certainly was not an acknowledged father.

 

[Cymruflyer]

This image is from DJI's own website (DJI Mavic 3 - Imaging Above Everything - DJI) and God bless 'em for the new toy tool, but I have to say my first thought on this was: "Did they really get everyone's permission to be involved in that shot....??" There were several other shots where I could only reflect on the aphorism that it certainly helps to know the right people....

But on to the celebration...! NEW TOOL....!

They would not need anyone's permission, you can't tell a single person from that height. Assuming they are out in a public spot.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

They would not need anyone's permission, you can't tell a single person from that height. Assuming they are out in a public spot.

Might that not depend on the jurisdiction?

 

[Cymruflyer]

It might but I doubt it. Basically you can take anyone's photo if you and they are out in public in about all western countries. You just can't use the image to advertise anything with.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

It might but I doubt it. Basically you can take anyone's photo if you and they are out in public in about all western countries. You just can't use the image to advertise anything with.

Possibly true but I'd be wary at a beach. I was actually thinking more of, can you legally over fly a group?

 

[Cymruflyer]

True but can you legally over fly a group?

That's a completely different question.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

That's a completely different question.

Agreed but I thought it was implicit in the OP's question.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Agreed but I thought it was implicit in the OP's question.

I suggest you read his question again then. The OP wondered if they got the permission from everyone to get the shot. The OP mentioned nothing about the legality of flying over the people.

It was you who brought up the legality. I thought you would have known that, having asked the question. Therefore, it could not have been, as you suggested, "Implicit in the OP's questions", because it was, in fact, not in the OP's question at all.

 

[Deleted member 103366]

he OP mentioned nothing about the legality of flying over the people.

What other consequence would there be if the photographed objected to their photos being taken, unless they were to assault the pilot or damage the equipment.
Anyway I think we take differing meanings out of the OP's post, let's leave it at that.
I don't think either of use will influence the other.

 

[Cymruflyer]

What other consequence would there be if the photographed objected to their photos being taken, unless they were to assault the pilot or damage the equipment.
Anyway I think we take differing meanings out of the OP's post, let's leave it at that.
I don't think either of use will influence the other.

I was just going by facts, not hypothesizing on what the OP was asking. The OP wondered if they had permission to photograph the people in the photo. You on the other hand, wondered about the legality of over flying a group. Those are two very different things and that is what I stated.

People out in public places have no legal way of objecting to being photographed in most counties in the world. In fact that is happening to them every day of their life, by CCTV, Police cameras, satellite images, Google earth cars driving around the world, private home owners security cameras, door bell cameras, shop's security cameras plus all the people you see out there every day, taking photos with their cameras, constantly including members of the public in their shots. Just think about it.

 

[Winston Bull]

Good morning! OP here…. I confess that my post was a somewhat snarky commentary on my own perception that DJI—in putting up some of the shots in its promotional M3 videos—was not necessarily following regs of either the FAA or other governing bodies where those drones were flying. There was a shot in Dubai around Burj Khalifa that looked to be rather more than 400’ up and not near a 400’+ building; there are numerous shots over people and auto traffic, etc

But as pertains to the questions about my intentions in the post and flying over the folk in that shot, there is an actual FAA regulation (107.39) that says you cannot fly over crowds unless those folks are under cover or are “directly participating in the operation of the sUAS” and that does NOT mean involved simply in being in the shot. The point of that regulation is the safety of people on the ground, not whether they feel their privacy has been violated. (If you are out in public and not under cover you have no express expectation of privacy in the USA.)

It is a comment that I see pretty regularly here about people simply flying willy-nilly over congested highways and streets and outdoor malls.