Sharing drone video with news stations

[JS_2016]

With all due respect, your footage may not convey the "story/theme" they are looking for. It may be a "good" video but not from the perspective they are looking for.

I've had probably 3 dozen clips used on various channels over the last several years and it's been as simple as just submitting it to the right avenue within each channel.

If you're not 107 they may be avoiding it because it could be "Grey Area" from a legal stance.

If you shoot the scene with the INTENT to share it with news/media, you are now operating clearly outside of ~44809 and in the Part 107 realm. Even if you're not doing it "for" the secondary use they may have an in-house UAS unit and have a standing rule to only use UAS footage from their UAS to avoid any legal issues.

Somehow I didn’t see this comment until now. Thanks for taking time to respond to my questions and I think you have answered my question of why a news station won’t use my footage. It makes sense that a news station likely wants to use it’s own drone operators footage and also doesn’t want the liability of using other peoples video. If I do decide to share a video of something I think could be interesting to the general public I will probably turn to Facebook or Twitter and not bother with a news station.

 

[Luckyguy9]

The OP made it obvious the video was taken with the intent of sending it to the media for publication which would squarely make it a 107 flight.

The other possible issue could be the distance maintained away from the scene of emergency. Flying near an emergency scene is strongly discouraged.

It’s only a 107 video if he is contracted in advance and paid. As per the 107 course, if while pleasure flying he videos something and a news channel purchases the footage, it’s still not commercial and not subject to 107 because he was pleasure flying and happened to capture the event.
if a news channel asks him to video something like a sporting event or protest and pays him, THAT is subject to 107 rules.

 

[Meta4]

It makes sense that a news station likely wants to use it’s own drone operators footage and also doesn’t want the liability of using other peoples video.

Apart from those points, TV News only have so many stories they can cover in the time they have and can't put everything in.
On any day, they will have many choices of what to include and your submissions would be competing for space with many other stories.
Non-acceptance could be because yours wasn't news-worthy enough or the cheerleader story or the cute kitten got the votes at the production meeting.

 

[Luckyguy9]

It’s only a 107 video if he is contracted in advance and paid. As per the 107 course, if while pleasure flying he videos something and a news channel purchases the footage, it’s still not commercial and not subject to 107 because he was pleasure flying and happened to capture the event.
if a news channel asks him to video something like a sporting event or protest and pays him, THAT is subject to 107 rules.

 

[Luckyguy9]

Unless he started the house fire, he found it interesting enough to launch his drone after the fact, out of curiosity as pleasure, even if he intended to give it to the news. And since no money changed hands, it’s not commercial and not 107. But flying to close to an emergency scene can be a problem. Maintain a safe distance, maintain visual contact, and don’t fly over any people.

 

[BigAl07]

It’s only a 107 video if he is contracted in advance and paid. As per the 107 course, if while pleasure flying he videos something and a news channel purchases the footage, it’s still not commercial and not subject to 107 because he was pleasure flying and happened to capture the event.
if a news channel asks him to video something like a sporting event or protest and pays him, THAT is subject to 107 rules.

Sorry but you're flat out wrong. Contracting in advance would be Part 107 but so is making the flight with the intent/desire to share the footage with the news. You may want to re-visit your Part 107 study materials and if they say it as you've stated it, seek information from ANOTHER source.... That's not correct.

If he was indeed "just" pleasure flying and captured something and then later determined News Worthy that's fine and legit. If at any moment of the flight he said/thought "Hey this DATA would be good to send to News100 and maybe they can use it on the air" from that point on the flight is Part 107 because it no longer fits into the "Bubble" of ~44809. The entire flight must be purely for recreational purposes and not intending to give the DATA to a 3rd party. If any portion of the flight does not fit COMPLETELY within ~44809, the entire flight, by Default is Part 107.

Unless he started the house fire, he found it interesting enough to launch his drone after the fact, out of curiosity as pleasure, even if he intended to give it to the news. And since no money changed hands, it’s not commercial and not 107. But flying to close to an emergency scene can be a problem. Maintain a safe distance, maintain visual contact, and don’t fly over any people.

You have your wires crossed. Part 107 isn't "just" about Commercial UAS Operations. Every flight (unless Public Safety or strictly within ~44809) is a Civil Operation which means Part 107. Yes Commercial is Part 107 but so is Search & Rescue, flying for your company (uncompensated), helping a roofing company inspect roofs etc...With all due respect, exchange of $$ is but one way you pierce the bubble of ~44809. You can not RECREATE for someone else.... this means, if he took the video with the intent to share with the news station (even if he's enjoying it and having a BLAST) he is no longer flying purely as a recreational operator.

If he "intended to give the footage to the news" the INTENT of the flight was not Recreational! Now if he captured the footage and AFTER THE FACT decided to share, or if he was approached and compensated for the footage, that's FINE! Keep in mind the FAA isn't concerned about the DATA (pictures, video etc) but the INTENT OF THE FLIGHT!!

 

[Luckyguy9]

Sorry but you're flat out wrong. Contracting in advance would be Part 107 but so is making the flight with the intent/desire to share the footage with the news. You may want to re-visit your Part 107 study materials and if they say it as you've stated it, seek information from ANOTHER source.... That's not correct.

If he was indeed "just" pleasure flying and captured something and then later determined News Worthy that's fine and legit. If at any moment of the flight he said/thought "Hey this DATA would be good to send to News100 and maybe they can use it on the air" from that point on the flight is Part 107 because it no longer fits into the "Bubble" of ~44809. The entire flight must be purely for recreational purposes and not intending to give the DATA to a 3rd party. If any portion of the flight does not fit COMPLETELY within ~44809, the entire flight, by Default is Part 107.




You have your wires crossed. Part 107 isn't "just" about Commercial UAS Operations. Every flight (unless Public Safety or strictly within ~44809) is a Civil Operation which means Part 107. Yes Commercial is Part 107 but so is Search & Rescue, flying for your company (uncompensated), helping a roofing company inspect roofs etc...With all due respect, exchange of $$ is but one way you pierce the bubble of ~44809. You can not RECREATE for someone else.... this means, if he took the video with the intent to share with the news station (even if he's enjoying it and having a BLAST) he is no longer flying purely as a recreational operator.

If he "intended to give the footage to the news" the INTENT of the flight was not Recreational! Now if he captured the footage and AFTER THE FACT decided to share, or if he was approached and compensated for the footage, that's FINE! Keep in mind the FAA isn't concerned about the DATA (pictures, video etc) but the INTENT OF THE FLIGHT!!

You are

Sorry but you're flat out wrong. Contracting in advance would be Part 107 but so is making the flight with the intent/desire to share the footage with the news. You may want to re-visit your Part 107 study materials and if they say it as you've stated it, seek information from ANOTHER source.... That's not correct.

If he was indeed "just" pleasure flying and captured something and then later determined News Worthy that's fine and legit. If at any moment of the flight he said/thought "Hey this DATA would be good to send to News100 and maybe they can use it on the air" from that point on the flight is Part 107 because it no longer fits into the "Bubble" of ~44809. The entire flight must be purely for recreational purposes and not intending to give the DATA to a 3rd party. If any portion of the flight does not fit COMPLETELY within ~44809, the entire flight, by Default is Part 107.




You have your wires crossed. Part 107 isn't "just" about Commercial UAS Operations. Every flight (unless Public Safety or strictly within ~44809) is a Civil Operation which means Part 107. Yes Commercial is Part 107 but so is Search & Rescue, flying for your company (uncompensated), helping a roofing company inspect roofs etc...With all due respect, exchange of $$ is but one way you pierce the bubble of ~44809. You can not RECREATE for someone else.... this means, if he took the video with the intent to share with the news station (even if he's enjoying it and having a BLAST) he is no longer flying purely as a recreational operator.

If he "intended to give the footage to the news" the INTENT of the flight was not Recreational! Now if he captured the footage and AFTER THE FACT decided to share, or if he was approached and compensated for the footage, that's FINE! Keep in mind the FAA isn't concerned about the DATA (pictures, video etc) but the INTENT OF THE FLIGHT!!

You are absolutely right and I stand corrected.
I was remembering the video from pilot institute chapter 107.1 -Applicability where Greg talks about this exact scenario but you are right!
it is the “intent” and if he goes flying with the intent of giving footage to a news channel, Even without money changing hands, then it’s subject to part 107.
That’s what I love about this forum, you guys are the best. Thank you!!

 

[spsphotos]

I'm not sure about the logic of that statement.
If a flyer manages to take some interesting images, that doesn't mean that he can't be flying for his own pleasure.
What's to say a flyer isn't flying for his own enjoyment?
I doubt that the FAA are able to discern the thoughts and motivations of a flyer or would try to.
Here's part of an FAA document written by an FAA lawyer addressing the issue:

I've seen similar comments a number of times, but never seen ant official confirmation of that either.

That information seems to be right on the money. Easy way to say it. If you fly with the intention of selling, showing, giving away, promoting, inspecting, or any other use of the photos/footage other than looking at on your computer at home, you need a Part 107. Period.

 

[muchuckwagon]

If your end goal is to get some of your drone footage on the news then a better option might be to post your videos on social media. Eventually, a media outlet will reach out to you if the content meets their programming needs. Even if media outlets don't use the footage, you can still achieve your goal on some level by sharing it with others online who might find it interested.

I had zero intention or even imagined anyone but a handful of friends/family would see my drone videos. However, several companies found my images/videos and reached out for permission to use them....some even used them without permission.

 

[JS_2016]

Sorry but you're flat out wrong. Contracting in advance would be Part 107 but so is making the flight with the intent/desire to share the footage with the news. You may want to re-visit your Part 107 study materials and if they say it as you've stated it, seek information from ANOTHER source.... That's not correct.

If he was indeed "just" pleasure flying and captured something and then later determined News Worthy that's fine and legit. If at any moment of the flight he said/thought "Hey this DATA would be good to send to News100 and maybe they can use it on the air" from that point on the flight is Part 107 because it no longer fits into the "Bubble" of ~44809. The entire flight must be purely for recreational purposes and not intending to give the DATA to a 3rd party. If any portion of the flight does not fit COMPLETELY within ~44809, the entire flight, by Default is Part 107.




You have your wires crossed. Part 107 isn't "just" about Commercial UAS Operations. Every flight (unless Public Safety or strictly within ~44809) is a Civil Operation which means Part 107. Yes Commercial is Part 107 but so is Search & Rescue, flying for your company (uncompensated), helping a roofing company inspect roofs etc...With all due respect, exchange of $$ is but one way you pierce the bubble of ~44809. You can not RECREATE for someone else.... this means, if he took the video with the intent to share with the news station (even if he's enjoying it and having a BLAST) he is no longer flying purely as a recreational operator.

If he "intended to give the footage to the news" the INTENT of the flight was not Recreational! Now if he captured the footage and AFTER THE FACT decided to share, or if he was approached and compensated for the footage, that's FINE! Keep in mind the FAA isn't concerned about the DATA (pictures, video etc) but the INTENT OF THE FLIGHT!!

I understand the “intent “ piece of all of this. If I had started my story with the following would that change the “intent “?
(To a news station or other media person)
- “Hi, I was in my back yard today with my drone checking out how full my gutters were getting and noticed some smoke coming from next door. I turned my camera towards the smoke and discovered my next door neighbors house was on fire! I got some good footage and was careful not to interfere with any fire and medical personnel. I can send you a short clip of what I witnessed and I don’t seek any compensation for the video. Use it if you’d like.”

I also have another question for you that you’ll find interesting. I live a few blocks from a river which looks calm but it’s very swift. At least once a week the fire dept. and about 10 water rescue vehicles race past my house to try and save yet another person who thinks they can outswim the swift waters. (As I am writing this , right now, a crew just flew past my house!) Last summer there was a huge crew that went down to the river and curiosity got the best of me which led me to grab my drone and drive to the scene. I walked out into a bridge where many police and rescue officers (about 25) were all looking around trying to find a woman that fell into the river and was holding onto branches somewhere along the river. We could hear her screaming but we couldn’t see her! I walked up to one of the police officers and asked “do you guys have a drone?” They said no. I told them I had one and if they wanted me to go into the air and find her. They said No. As it turns out they spent another two hours looking for her and saved her but if I had gotten into the air I could have found her immediately since she was tangled up on brush right near the bridge but was out into the river and not in the river bank. The rescue people had to dig through branches along the river to get to her. My question is what if I had put my drone in the air away from the scene (without asking) and flown over to the woman and found her, called the police and told them where she was. Am I going to be the hero that goes to jail for finding her? Am I liable for interfering with a police investigation? Just wondering because there is a drowning happening right now as I write this post! There are at least a dozen or more drowning or “near drownings” every summer.

 

[JS_2016]

You are

You are absolutely right and I stand corrected.
I was remembering the video from pilot institute chapter 107.1 -Applicability where Greg talks about this exact scenario but you are right!
it is the “intent” and if he goes flying with the intent of giving footage to a news channel, Even without money changing hands, then it’s subject to part 107.
That’s what I love about this forum, you guys are the best. Thank you!!

How do you prove what people are thinking at any given moment. Sounds like a “thought crime”. As I’ve said over and over I never fly with the thought of selling or giving footage to anyone. It’s only after the fact that upon viewing my footage I feel that a part of my video would be interesting to show other people because nothing compares to video captured by a drone.

 

[DoomMeister]

I understand the “intent “ piece of all of this. If I had started my story with the following would that change the “intent “?
(To a news station or other media person)
- “Hi, I was in my back yard today with my drone checking out how full my gutters were getting and noticed some smoke coming from next door. I turned my camera towards the smoke and discovered my next door neighbors house was on fire! I got some good footage and was careful not to interfere with any fire and medical personnel. I can send you a short clip of what I witnessed and I don’t seek any compensation for the video. Use it if you’d like.”

I also have another question for you that you’ll find interesting. I live a few blocks from a river which looks calm but it’s very swift. At least once a week the fire dept. and about 10 water rescue vehicles race past my house to try and save yet another person who thinks they can outswim the swift waters. (As I am writing this , right now, a crew just flew past my house!) Last summer there was a huge crew that went down to the river and curiosity got the best of me which led me to grab my drone and drive to the scene. I walked out into a bridge where many police and rescue officers (about 25) were all looking around trying to find a woman that fell into the river and was holding onto branches somewhere along the river. We could hear her screaming but we couldn’t see her! I walked up to one of the police officers and asked “do you guys have a drone?” They said no. I told them I had one and if they wanted me to go into the air and find her. They said No. As it turns out they spent another two hours looking for her and saved her but if I had gotten into the air I could have found her immediately since she was tangled up on brush right near the bridge but was out into the river and not in the river bank. The rescue people had to dig through branches along the river to get to her. My question is what if I had put my drone in the air away from the scene (without asking) and flown over to the woman and found her, called the police and told them where she was. Am I going to be the hero that goes to jail for finding her? Am I liable for interfering with a police investigation? Just wondering because there is a drowning happening right now as I write this post! There are at least a dozen or more drowning or “near drownings” every summer.

It sounds like the type of public service flying you would like to do it would be in your best interest to prepare and take the 107 certification. This would free you from flying under gray area conditions and also might gain credibility with your local emergency services.

 

[spudster]

You see videos of storms, accidents and other events posted individuals on tv/news station or private FB pages all of the time and in the comments you'll see news agencies asking if they can use the footage.

So, in that case, if there is a hurricane in Florida and go flying taking photos of the damage because I find it interesting and enjoyable doing so. Then to post on my FB page, local TV stations FB page or YouTube Is that commercial use if a TV station uses some of the footage?

 

[Meta4]

Is that commercial use if a TV station uses some of the footage?

You are getting confused.
The FAA is concerned about commercial flight, not commercial use of imagery.
Their regulations are all about filght, they have none regarding use of imagery.
It's all about the flying.

 

[JS_2016]

It sounds like the type of public service flying you would like to do it would be in your best interest to prepare and take the 107 certification. This would free you from flying under gray area conditions and also might gain credibility with your local emergency services.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment. For the past couple of hours I’ve been looking on the web for 107 training courses and found a couple places in my city that administer 107 testing so I will likely study up and take the test. Thanks for pointing me into the right direction. I really appreciate it.

 

[Dogpilot]

Intent. That is a very wide word. Being a long time pilot you always have to consider what category your flight may fall under. For example if you take a person up for a flight in your airplane and that person takes pics that end up being sold, is that a professional job or not? You where not compensated for it in any way. Your platform earned money for another. What was the intent here. Remember the "News" is not an altruistic organization doing it for free. Everything they put over the air or print in a paper is a product, which they are selling and or compensated via advertising, or even re-selling the imaging to other news organizations. So anything you "give" them is going to be sold so there is an expectation of compensation surrounding the image.

Then it also really boils down to who is the "person" at the FAA who is going to enforce his/her/its opinion on the intent of compensation for the flight. Kind of a wide gamut there. Then there is the issue they must get their enforcement action to fall within the 6 month window for it to be valid. More often than not, the FAA cannot get actions to fall within this window. They are a very slow moving bureaucracy. I have had issues at airspace I manage for events, with video and witness statements that they could not seem to get to in time. Like many things there are laws, but no enforcement to back it up.

Personally, I have sold imaging to the news. Not from drones, but aircraft. Many of you have likely unknowingly seen my video of conflict in Somalia, which I sold to CNN (who re-sold it many times over) from both the ground and from my aircraft. I would never conceive of "giving" them anything. It is akin to giving your app to Apple, they have the money to pay you and they are going to ruthlessly sell it any way they can.

 

[jaswalt]

I’ve taken some good footage of a couple of fires/accidents in my neighborhood and have given the footage to several news stations through their “news tips” section but the stations never air my footage. I know my videos are well made and am wondering if their is a legal reason they can’t or won’t use the footage. Just today I sent some really good footage of a house fire near some restaurants a block from my house but the news station I sent it to only used shaky, out of focus video from a bystander at the street level of the fire on the 11:00 pm news. Has anyone else gotten no response after submitting video to a news stations? If there is a legal reason then I won’t bother taking the time to share it.

There is also plenty of requests from authorities to not fly near or around events like crimes or fires since this may interfere with their own drone efforts for the same event. Just because you cannot see a drone being used by authorities doesn't mean there isn't one. And to post footage from drone enthusiasts is kind of like the news condoning flying in these areas. So best not to do that in the future.

 

[ChampFlyer]

I’ve taken some good footage of a couple of fires/accidents in my neighborhood and have given the footage to several news stations through their “news tips” section but the stations never air my footage. I know my videos are well made and am wondering if their is a legal reason they can’t or won’t use the footage. Just today I sent some really good footage of a house fire near some restaurants a block from my house but the news station I sent it to only used shaky, out of focus video from a bystander at the street level of the fire on the 11:00 pm news. Has anyone else gotten no response after submitting video to a news stations? If there is a legal reason then I won’t bother taking the time to share it.

Hi, I fly for a few local news stations as a contractor. This means that the assignment desk editor or producer sends me on assignments to gather video and photos of an event.
While your footage may be of high quality, you have to think like a journalist when capturing the event. Capture footage that tells the complete story. Next time you are shooting something of interest consider creating shot list and checking off each item on it.

An example list:
- Where is the event? Tight shots of street signs, city signs, anything that helps the audience identify the location visually.
- What is the event? In your case, it was a fire. Get multiple angles, wide and tight shots
- Who is impacted? Who is on the scene?
- Reaction of bystanders.
- Why did it happen? What was the cause? After you fly, go and interview people. Ask a first responder for any details. Be accurate!
- When did it happen?
Summarize the information obtained in your shot list into a short google doc and include it with the upload. Bonus points for sending a link to the location on Google maps too. Include your contact info and phone number so the reporter can ask questions if needed.

Be familiar with the Code of Ethics for Photojournalists. Code of Ethics for Visual Journalists

If they do not know you, then you will have to sell them on the value of the footage and let them know you are a part 107 licensed pilot.


As for your footage not making the news. This is just part of the business. News is very dynamic and there are only so many stories that can be told in a day. The producers will move stories in and out of a broadcast based on what they believe will be the most engaging for their audience.



Use care when flying around scenes with first responders. Be sure to not impact the operation and maintain situational awareness. Land immediately if LifeFlight is on the way. My understanding is that they will be delayed if UAS are spotted in the area.

Hope this helps.

 

[BigAl07]

........
Use care when flying around scenes with first responders. Be sure to not impact the operation and maintain situational awareness. Land immediately if LifeFlight is on the way. My understanding is that they will be delayed if UAS are spotted in the area.

Hope this helps.

They will 100% be "waved off" if there is any unauthorized UAS in the area. This could mean the difference between life & death in a severe instance.

While I fully respect the right to "Gather News" etc I feel like any UAS flights should at the least be coordinated with the on-scene Incident Commander regardless of intent of the flight. Just my 2-cents from flying on both sides of the equation regularly.

 

[ChampFlyer]

Thanks BigAl07,

I am in the process of setting up meetings with local authorities to introduce myself and learn how I can effectively do my job without impacting theirs. I hope to build the relationship in a way that makes them feel at ease when I am on the scene because they trust that have knowledge of their SOPs and will not interfere.