PARCAP QUICK ALERT IDAHO STATE ALERT If you fly in IDAHO please see the changes that were made on March 27 to SB 1134. The original bill exempted an "unmanned aircraft system used in the taking of commercial photography". The bill was tabled but yesterday came back to life with some amendments, one of which removed the language above. If you fly or work in Idaho please contact your state legislator. The bills primary sponsor is Chuck Winder. See more in PARCAP News
Count me in, thanks Andy and the rest that are making this posible how can we help. greetings from South Florida
Hi Jose: The things we need know are: 1. Encouraging others to join. 2. Keeping an eye on State legislators as to what they doing as new House and Senate Bills are introduced or amended. 3. For example, if Florida introduces anti-UAS legislation, we'd like to know about it and we'll help you submit written testimony -- it seems stronger that it should come from a Floridian than, say, and Oregonian! Andy.
PARCAP QUICK ALERT IDAHO STATE ALERT The Second Reading of a troubling bill in Idaho happened today, April 2. If you fly in IDAHO please see the changes that were made on March 27 to SB 1134. The original bill exempted an "unmanned aircraft system used in the taking of commercial photography". If you fly or work in Idaho please contact your state House legislator. The bills primary sponsor is Chuck Winder. Make your voice heard. The next step is the Third Reading, discussion and then a vote in the Idaho House. This bill would effectively end the use of any UAV taking any types of photos without permission of the person or property owner. You can read the bill HERE and the amendment that removed the exemption HERE.
Gary, I'm no lawyer, but am I do infer that this is primarily aimed at surveillance and paparazzi-type activities? Most of us are involved in things like film/TV shoots, commercial property shoots, and just artistic stuff, where individuals and their property are typically used with permission. I'm not so sure that this bill would limit these activities, and I'm also not so sure that this is a bad thing.
I think we all agree with things like the paparazzi issues. But there are already laws against that type of use. It really boils down to 'intent'. The tools or methods are always evolving. But the intent really defines whether there was a privacy or other type of violation. Steve you had some great shots of the lighthouse. Not that Idaho has any lighthouses but by strict definition unless you had property and people releases for everything that was in the video someone who was unhappy with seeing the video on the web might have an actionable cause. From the amended bill: "(b) Absent reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, no person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to photograph or otherwise record an individual, without such individual's written consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph. (c) The provisions of this subsection shall not restrict the use of an unmanned aircraft system for the purpose of taking photographs of gatherings of the public on public or private land." The challenge would be that even in a shoot of the lighthouse, not sure who owns it but doubt that you would call the few folks wandering around a 'gathering' it might be problematic. Or the shots in the convention center. Releases for every visible person? They had exempted commercial photography in the original bill. That was removed through amendments. Better to stand up now and have some common sense rather than the broad brush strokes that we are seeing in some states.
count me in! I sincerely hope you will succeed to do what I failed here in France, mostly because of individualism of french people. A shame because we are now pretty much stuck with a @#*! legislation that is miles away from our use of RC controlled aircrafts for filming, the administration obviously cared more about protecting their jobs rather than really trying to understand our business and help us secure it. The press here didn't help much, on the contrary, the fact some people called our systems "drones" didn't help either.... Best of luck, Jean-Luc from France
I'm interested in being a part of this. Maybe I can help with the site creation - I'm currently a .NET developer, though I've also worked PHP in the past, both with MySQL. -Eric
Hi Jean-Luc and Eric: Thanks for the posting. Sorry to hear about the situation in France, Jean-Luc. I'm afraid that the same thing is likely to happen here because the State legislators are concerned about "imaginary horrible" situations rather than the reality of the situation with UAVs. Eric: Currently parcap.org is being created an maintained by Ryan Rowe. I've emailed him to ask whether he can take you up on your offer of assistance. Andy.
Hi Eric, Thank you for your interest in PARCAP and the offer to help with site creation. We could use your participation, but the first way you can be of assistance is to become a member. There is a 50% discount right now for Charter members. http://parcap.org/join/membership-levels/ Thanks, Ryan.
Count me in Andy! I'm part of a small group in VA that is approaching this from a similar angle. If be glad to help however I can.
Thanks, Scott and Mike. Please keep you're eyes peeled for any stories relating to legislation. We need to catch Bills while they're in committee and before there has been a public hearing! Andy.