7 Comments

Summary:

Taking photos by drone allows the media to better report on fires, traffic and other important public issues — so why has the government banned this type of photography?

3D Robotics Iris drone

The New York Times and other major media outlets have accused the Federal Aviation Administration of “chilling” journalism and violating their First Amendment rights by banning the use of unmanned aircraft for news photography.

The media outlets made the claims in a “friend of the court” brief (see below) filed Tuesday in support of Raphael Pirker, a drone hobbyist who was fined $10,000 by the FAA for using a five-pound drone to make a promotional video over the University of Virginia.

A judge dismissed the fine, agreeing that the FAA did not have the authority to impose it, but now the agency is appealing the decision and, at the same time, has been warning media outlets and others not to use unmanned aircraft for photography.

The media companies responded with the legal filing, which complains that the FAA is wrong to classify news footage obtained by drone as a “business” subject to FAA regulation, and says the agency’s ad hoc measures — including banning a drone photography at two journalism schools — are arbitrary and illegal.

The media outlets also point out that drone photography provides a cost-effective way to report on important public issues like forest fires, traffic jams, weather and crop yields, and that the FAA ban is chilling their ability to do so.

In supporting Pirker, the dozen or so media companies, which also include the AP and the Washington Post, argue that the FAA should recognize drones as a new form of traditional news gathering:

The FAA’s position is untenable as it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding about journalism. News gathering is not a “business purpose”: It is a First Amendment right. [...]  Our laws have always been flexible enough to incorporate new technologies—from the printing press, to cameras, to radio, to television, to the Internet —without banning them and while still protecting basic rights and freedoms.  (emphasis mine)

The filing comes at a time that governments are scrambling to respond to an explosion in the popularity of consumer drones, which weigh three to five pounds and let hobbyists take stunning photos. (See these news photos of an explosion in Harlem or my colleague Signe Brewster’s aerial tour of San Francisco).

In the absence of clear rules, agencies have responded with outright bans, including the National Park Service’s decision last week to declare all drones in Yosemite to be illegal.

“The bigger picture is that the interest in the technology has far outpaced the rule-making process of various agencies,” said Brendan Schulman, a drone attorney who is representing Pirker. “The laws are over-reaching and and don’t give credit to the beneficial aspects of technology.”

Schulman is in the process of filing a response to the FAA’s appeal, which is being lodged before a full panel of the National Transportation Safety Board. The board has yet to say if it will hold a hearing for the appeal, and the final outcome can in turn be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

It remains unclear if the FAA has authority over consumer drones outside of airports and commercial flyways (see our explainer which suggests anything under 400 feet is fair game), although states and cities can currently apply privacy and public order laws.

You can read the media outlet’s brief here (I’ve underlined some of the key parts) :

NYT Et Al Amicus for Drones

An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that an appeal in the NTSB ruling lies with a District Court; the appeal is to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. You didn’t have the photos/video before the technology was available and guess what? We as consumers of your news didn’t care and we don’t care now. Put your little toys away and quit polluting our views with your drones.

    1. You weren’t able to pollute our minds with your close-minded views before the Internet. Should we unplug and hide from technology?

    2. speak for yourself BobKnob

  2. The news guys can say drones aren’t for business purposes… but when the news guys put one thru a car windshield, or into someones face… they are gonna discover the business of how deep their pockets really are.

    One or two famous accidental death and injury suits, and journalism will want nothing to do
    with the drone business ever again.

    They will certainly get what they want… lawsuits.

  3. Martin Johnson Wednesday, May 7, 2014

    The future is here now and growing faster and faster everyday. They may have been toys at first, but now they are tools (for some of us). Be it reporting on a traffic accident, to a house fire, baseball game or the sunset from a Florida beach. They are here to stay and you’ll be seeing more and more of them everyday. My 85 year old Dad wants things to go back to like they were back in the “good old days” too. But here’s a newsflash for everyone who wants the same. The good old days weren’t that good if you think about it. Wars, gas shortage,stock market crash, and so on. This new “toy” (as some call it) is part of our future that starts today. MultiRotors are here to stay, just like computers and smart phones, there here to stay. At one time not too long ago the first flight was taken down in Kitty Hawk. Some didn’t see the future then as well.

  4. JenniferDawn Wednesday, May 7, 2014

    make it legal to shoot them down…

  5. unclefishbits Thursday, May 8, 2014

    I am a pro-transparency advocate that believes in protecting civil liberties while believing “privacy” is a waste of time, a red herring, and hasn’t existed for decades.

    All that being said, I found a drone hovering 15 feet from my porch, which is over open space. Camera staring into my house. I took pics, saw the guy take off after landing the drone. He said it was for real estate, but seriously…. staring into my home, a vantage point that no other human being in the world can access because of the height off the hill, and lack of any homes staring into our homes.

    I didn’t grab the camera until it had flown from my balcony. It was no more than 10 ft away at first. http://www.unclefishbits.com/violation-in-the-21st-century-even-a-transparency-advocate-can-feel-like-his-privacy-is-at-risk/

    That’s messed up. I dig that you need public access to events for news, but the fine line between intrusion will be painfully difficult to figure out. Is a UAE flown over your neighbors yard “trespassing”? http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/10/if-i-fly-a-uav-over-my-neighbors-house-is-it-trespassing/263431/

    Even if it’s private property, people are going to react to these things. I know I can’t shoot it down, but how close does it have to be to my house for me to throw rocks?

Comments have been disabled for this post