UAV And Photography Law Compilation

1. The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration (US Government)) Suggests that UAVs be flown under 300 feet high, and not within 5 miles of
a public airport. ReddingDrone respects these suggestions and will comply, and will also avoid crowded public
places. Not respecting these suggestions can resolute in a penalty for flying in a hazardous manor.
2. New DJI Phantom software (DJI popular UAV Model) will include no fly zones with all the newer models. This will prevent people from
taking off and flying in and around major
airports. NO FLY ZONE SOFTWARE LINK:
http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc

Drone Law Journal Excerpt

(Written by Peter Sachs Attorney at Law & Licensed Private Investigator)

Not written as official legal advice, but written for public good and knowledge.
Reproduced with permission from author, Peter Sachs.
This article relates to the remote-controlled model aircraft variety of drones, not military drones.

The federal government has no authority whatsoever to regulate the operation of remote-controlled model
aircraft, Business or otherwise.

Under Section 336 of the FMRA of 2012, Congress has dictated that the FAA will not be permitted to promulgate any rule or
regulation regarding a model aircraft.
But the same Act will exclude RCMAs that are used commercially from the definition of RCMA, and the FAA will be able to promulgate
rules and regulations for RCMA usedcommercially. Thus the exact same make and model of RCMA will ultimately be regulated if used
commercially, and unregulated if used non-commercially. Since the FAAs primary reason for existence is safety, it begs the question how
the exchange of money is even remotely related to safety.
Remote-controlled model aircraft are not aircraft, as defined in federal statutory and regulation language.
The federal statutes that govern aviation are found in Title 49 Section 44101, et seq. of the US Code. Under 49 USC 40102, aircraft
means, any contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air. The federal regulations that pertain to aviation are
found in 14 CFR 1.1, et seq. Under 14 CFR 1.1, aircraft means, a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air. Both the
statutes and regulations define aircraft similarly, and in extremely broad terms. Taken literally, these definitions would include many things.
Take for example, paper airplanes. Paper airplanes are contrivances or devices, and they are designed tofly or intendedfor
flight in the air. Indeed, thats their sole purpose. They clearly meet the literal definitions of aircraft. Therefore, paper airplanes should
only be operated, if they are registered, (49 USC 44101, 49 USC 44103 and 14 CFR Part 91.203); if the person operating them holds
a proper pilot certificate and medical certificate (14 CFR 61.3); and if the paper airplane has itself been issued an airworthiness certificate
(14 CFR Part 91.203).

Moreover, in the event of a paper airplane crash, the FAA and NTSB would be required by law to investigate (49 USC 1132). 49 CFR
Sec. 831.2, states, in relevant part, that the NTSB is responsible for . . . all accident and incident investigations . . . where the accident or
incident involves any civil aircraft. (Emphasis added.) A civil aircraft means aircraft other than a public (government operated) aircraft.
(14 CFR Sec. 1.1) If a paper airplane is an aircraft, the NTSB must investigate if one crashes.
Yet the FAA does not require paper airplanes or their operators to adhere to aircraft regulations. And the NTSB does not investigate their
accidents. Thus, the FAA has never treated paper airplanes as aircraft. Since each and every paper airplane has been operated with open
disregard to applicable aircraft regulations, and since the FAA has done nothing to prevent it since its inception, it follows that the FAA
simply does not consider paper airplanes to be included in the definition of aircraft. Of course, it would be interesting to hear them argue
that they are.*
Now replace the words paper airplane with remote-controlled model aircraft. RCMA are also unquestionably contrivances or devices,
that are designed tofly or intendedfor flight in the air. Yet like paper airplanes, the FAA has never historically treated RCMA as
aircraft. RCMA have never been required to be registered; they have never been required to have airworthiness certificates; their operation
has never been limited to those with the proper pilot and medical certifications; and the NTSB, in defiance of law, has never swooped in to
investigate when a RCMA has hit a tree and crashed. How can the FAA now insist a RCMA rises to the level of being an aircraft for safety
reasons, but that same RCMA does not merit an investigation if it collides with the ground?
As is the case with paper airplanes, each and every RCMA has also been operated with open disregard to applicable aircraft regulations,
and since the FAA has done nothing to prevent it since its inception, it also follows that the FAA also does not consider RCMA to be
included in the definition of aircraft.
Bear in mind that its not as if the FAA was suddenly surprised to learn about RCMA, and that not asserting control over them was a mere
oversight. RCMA are not a new phenomenon. They far pre-date the FAAs creation. The FAA was well aware of RCMAs, their
characteristics and their capabilities when the definitions of aircraft were adopted. The FAAs historic and complete noninvolvement with
RCM indicates it purposefully eschewed the role of regulator. RCMA are not aircraft because the FAA never treated them as an aircraft.
In fact the FAA recently admitted publicly, that RCMA are indeed treated differently than aircraft. A recent tweet from
@FAASafetyBrief suggests that FAA certification is in the works.
@FAASafetyBrief We also plan to weave unmanned aircraft info into future articles, e.g., how to keep it airworthy and
certified. - 10:39 AM 29 Jan 2014
If the FAA is now stating that it is planning to certify RCMA, by definition certification is not currently required. Since all current civil
aircraft must be certified, the FAA is admitting that RCMA are not aircraft.

Although no enforceable statute or regulation has been adopted or changed, and no case law has been decided to support it, the FAA is
now repeatedly claiming RCMA, when used commercially are aircraft and subject to its authority. It relies on Title 49 and 14 CFR as a basis
for its newly claimed power to regulate commercially operated RCMA as aircraft, despite the fact that no language in either the statutory or
regulatory definitions of aircraft makes the exchange of money a factor. Nor is the exchange of money found within the language of the
very document the FAA had always provide as a courtesy as guidance to RCMA operators Advisory Circular 91-57. Since RCMA are
exempt from registration, pilot certification, airworthiness certification and accident investigation, how does operating them for
compensation magically make them aircraft?
The FAA has gone as far as sending some folks what are essentially pretend cease and desist letters in an attempt to scare them into not
operating commercially. Since there is no law to back up the FAAs order to cease and desist, those letters are entirely meaningless; have
no force of law behind them; and can be ignored with impunity. Of course one might incur legal fees trying to fight a cease and desist
letter regardless of its merit, which explains why those who have received them have self-grounded themselves.
[UPDATE: 02/04/2014] Recently released copies of FAA cease and desist letters, obtained via FOIA request submitted by Attorney
Patrick McKay, indicate the FAA is indeed, as I stated in the paragraph above, lying about the law in these letters, and are in fact pretending
to have authority over RCMA.
Enforceable Law (versus non-Law or non-enforceable law.)
Law, with respect to aviation, exists in three forms: federal statutes, federal regulations and federal case law, where the statutes and/or
regulations have been interpreted. If no law exists in any of these forms, then no such law exists. One need not obey any law that does
not exist.

The United States Code, Subtitle VII. Federal statutory law is enacted by Congress and found in the United States Code. The federal
statutes that govern aviation are found in Title 49 USC Sec. 44101, et seq., and have the force of law. Current federal aviation statutes find
their roots in the Federal Aviation Act in 1958, as revised. The Act basically provides the big picture with regard to aviation. Most
importantly, it established the FAA, and granted it power to oversee and regulate matters relating to the safety and use of American
airspace though the promulgation of regulations. As such, although the US Code addresses aviation law in broad terms, the details of
aviation laws are actually found in the FAA regulations.
The Federal Aviation Regulations Federal regulations are promulgated by the FAA and found in the Code of Federal Regulations. The
federal regulations that pertain to aviation, (the FARs), are found in 14 CFR 1.1, et seq., and have the force of law. There is nothing in the
FARs that concerns RCMA. The FAA cannot just make up regulations as it goes along, to enforce activities that it simply wishes to enforce.
There must exist an actual statute or regulation for the FAA to enforce. The FARs are the only federal regulations that exist pertaining to
aviation, and are the only regulations that are legally enforceable. Youll not find any that concern RCMA. You will see regulations that
apply to other craft, such as balloons, rockets and even kites. So the FAA clearly contemplated flight-capable craft other than airplanes and
helicopters when it adopted the current regulations. If the FAA had intended to regulate RCMA as well, it would have done so. It didnt.
Federal Case Law. Federal case law is, in a nutshell, the collection of decisions made by adjudicative bodies concerning FAA enforcement
actions. For example, the FAA may issue an order suspending a pilots certificate or it may impose a civil penalty. Enforcement actions may
be appealed by way of a hearing before an NTSB administrative law judge. That judges decision may then be appealed to the NTSB
Board. Finally, the Boards decision may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Whatever the final decision in the matter is, at whichever
stage
the
controversy ends becomes precedent, and that decision essentially has the force of law under the doctrine of stare decisis. At
this writing, there is no case law concerning commercial RCMA use. There will be soon.
In the first FAA enforcement action against an operator of an RCMA, Administrator v. Raphael Pirker, NTSB Docket CP-217 (July
18, 2013), the FAA is trying to fine Raphael Pirker, (who is being defended quite capably by Attorney Brendan M. Schulman who posts
on Twitter under @dronelaws), for reckless operation of a remote-controlled model aircraft under FAR Part 91. Pirker was hired by the
University of Virginia to obtain aerial video of its campus.
Although the FAA alleged in its July 18, 2013 Order of Assessment, (its Complaint), that Pirker was flying for compensation, interestingly
enough, it did not use that allegation as a basis for the proposed assessment of a civil penalty of $10,000.00. Instead it relied on Pirkers
alleged violation of FAR 91.13(a) that states, no person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the
life or property of another as the basis.
If commercial use is in fact illegal, why didnt the FAA also base its Complaint on Pirkers alleged commercial use? Well, it couldnt
because there are no regulations that prohibit commercial use, and it knew in the absence of any such regulations, basing its Complaint on
commercial use wouldnt fly. (Pun intended.)
However, by not using commercial use as a basis of the proposed civil penalty, and relying solely upon an allegation of reckless operation,
the FAA has also essentially admitted in its own Complaint that commercial use is not prohibited. If Pirker prevails, it still wont settle the
specific commercial use issue because that was not a basis of the FAAs Complaint. However it will settle the overall question as to
whether the FAA has authority to regulate RCMA at all, which would, of course, include commercial use.
Non-Law (or non-enforceable law). Now lets take a look at the stuff that might sound like law, but that is not law at all. A number of
folks, including the FAA, mistakenly point to any or all of the following publications as regulations prohibiting commercial use of RCMA.
However, not one of the following publications has the force of law, and therefore, none is legally enforceable:
Advisory Circular 91-57, entitled, Model Aircraft Operating Standards and published in 1981, is essentially a letter of guidance.
Compliance with its language is entirely voluntaryand it is merely a list of common sense suggestions, and is not legally enforceable.
[Update:Cancellation of this Advisory Circular was requested by the FAA on October 10, 2014 because it claims Section 336 of
the FMRA of 2012 supersedes it. The FMRA of 2012, as described below, does not even apply to the public. It applies only to the
FAA at this writing.]

The FAA 2007 Clarification is merely a document that clarifies the FAAs own current policy concerning operations of unmanned aircraft
in the National Airspace System. Although it does in fact state that remote-controlled model aircraft may not be used commercially, its
an Agency policy statement. A policy statement is not legally enforceable.
The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, specifically Title III, Subtitle B is an Act of Congress and is a law, but its one that is
simply a list of directives to the FAA. In and of itself it does not compel any person (other than those employed by the FAA whose duties
include the promulgation of regulations) to do or not do anything. The Act contains a number of directives to the FAA to develop regulations
concerning the integration of unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system. By definition, Congress having directed the FAA to
develop regulations means none currently exist. Moreover, these directives apply to the FAA only, not the general public. They are not
themselves regulations, and are not legally enforceable.
Unmanned Aircraft (UAS) Operational Approval, which the FAA uses as a definitive guide to the Certificate of Authority process for
unmanned aircraft. However, as it reads at its top, its merely a statement of National Policy. And as explained above, a policystatement
is not legally enforceable. This document even contains language admitting its not legally enforceable. Paragraph 5 reads that it is not
meant as a substitute for any regulatory process.
US DOTs Unmanned Aircraft Systems Comprehensive Plan, published in September, 2013, is merely a five-year road map. It is
self-described as a list of goals and objectives, to be revised annually, in furtherance of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012s directive to the FAA to integrate unmanned aircraft into the national airspace system. An agencys goals and objectives are
not regulations, and are not legally enforceable.
Certificates of Waiver or Authorization.
Pretty much everyone seems to think that obtaining a certificate of waiver or authorization (COA) is required to fly a drone. Thats what
the FAA has been claiming for years. However, its not required at all. In fact, with respect to public aircraft, (government operated
aircraft, such as those operated by police and fire departments), the FAA is not even permitted to regulate airworthiness or pilot
qualifications. The FAA can only regulate public aircraft insofar as they interact with all other aircraft, whether civil or public. In other
words, the FAA can only legally regulate public aircraft to the extend that they comply with Part 91 regulations.**
* Interestingly enough, a business known as PowerUp Toys, now markets a neat little device that attaches to a paper airplane. It has a
propeller and battery, and permits a person with a Smartphone to operate it remotely via Bluetooth. If the FAA claims that RCMA are
aircraft, this device will place the FAA in the absurd position of having to argue that a paper airplane is now a RCMA, and indeed an aircraft.
** While USC 49 44711 states, [a] person may not (1) operate a civil aircraft in air commerce without an airworthiness certificate in
effect and (2) serve in any capacity as an airman with respect to a civil aircraft, the same is not true for public aircraft. The FAA
cannot require operators of public aircraft to have airworthiness certificates or be operated by certified airmen. And as absurd as it
might sound, a police department helicopter need not be airworthy, and it may be flown by a non-pilot
(RCMA Remote Controlled Model
Aircraft) (UAV "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle"

-By Peter Sachs

http://dronelawjournal.com

The Photographers Right

Your Rights and

Remedies When
Stopped or
Confronted
for Photography

Updated November
2006

About this Guide

Confrontations that impair the constitutional right to make images are
becoming more common. To fight the
abuse of your right to free expression,
you need to know your rights to take
photographs and the remedies available if your rights are infringed.
The General Rule
The general rule in the United States
is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are
in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets,
sidewalks, and public parks.
Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises
but have no right to prohibit others
from photographing their property
from other locations. Whether you
need permission from property own-

ers to take photographs while on their

premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not
need explicit permission. However,
this is a judgment call and you should
request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are
legally obligated to honor the request.
Some Exceptions to the Rule
There are some exceptions to the
general rule. A significant one is that
commanders of military installations
can prohibit photographs of specific
areas when they deem it necessary to
protect national security. The U.S.
Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated
nuclear facilities although the publicly
visible areas of nuclear facilities are
usually not designated as such.
Members of the public have a very
limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically,
anyone can be photographed without
their consent except when they have
secluded themselves in places where
they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside
their homes.
Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

Who Is Likely to Violate Your Rights

Most confrontations are started by
security guards and employees of
organizations who fear photography.
The most common reason given is
security but often such persons have
no articulated reason. Security is
rarely a legitimate reason for restricting photography. Taking a photograph is not a terrorist act nor can a
business legitimately assert that taking a photograph of a subject in public
view infringes on its trade secrets.
On occasion, law enforcement officers may object to photography but
most understand that people have the
right to take photographs and do not
interfere with photographers. They do
have the right to keep you away from
areas where you may impede their
activities or endanger safety. However, they do not have the legal right
to prohibit you from taking photographs from other locations.
They Have Limited Rights to Bother,
Question, or Detain You
Although anyone has the right to
approach a person in a public place
and ask questions, persistent and
unwanted conduct done without a
legitimate purpose is a crime in many
states if it causes serious annoyance.
You are under no obligation to explain
the purpose of your photography nor
do you have to disclose your identity
except in states that require it upon
request by a law enforcement officer.
If the conduct goes beyond mere
questioning, all states have laws that
make coercion and harassment criminal offenses. The specific elements
vary among the states but in general it
is unlawful for anyone to instill a fear
that they may injure you, damage or
take your property, or falsely accuse
you of a crime just because you are
taking photographs.
Private parties have very limited
rights to detain you against your will
and may be subject to criminal and
civil charges should they attempt to
do so. Although the laws in most

states authorize citizens arrests, such

authority is very narrow. In general,
citizens arrests can be made only for
felonies or crimes committed in the
persons presence. Failure to abide by
these requirements usually means
that the person is liable for a tort such
as false imprisonment.
They Have No Right to Confiscate
Your Film
Sometimes agents acting for entities
such as owners of industrial plants
and shopping malls may ask you to
hand over your film. Absent a court
order, private parties have no right to
confiscate your film. Taking your film
directly or indirectly by threatening to
use force or call a law enforcement
agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion. It can
likewise constitute a civil tort such as
conversion. Law enforcement officers
may have the authority to seize film
when making an arrest but otherwise
must obtain a court order.
Your Legal Remedies If Harassed
If someone has threatened, intimidated, or detained you because you were
taking photographs, they may be
liable for crimes such as kidnapping,
coercion, and theft. In such cases, you
should report them to the police.
You may also have civil remedies
against such persons and their
employers. The torts for which you
may be entitled to compensation
include assault, conversion, false
imprisonment, and violation of your
constitutional rights.
Other Remedies If Harassed
If you are disinclined to take legal
action, there are still things you can do
that contribute to protecting the right
to take photographs.
(1) Call the local newspaper and see if
they are interested in running a story.
Many newspapers feel that civil liberties are worthy of serious coverage.
(2) Write to or call the supervisor of
the person involved, or the legal or

public relations department of the

entity, and complain about the event.
(3) Make the event publicly known on
an Internet forum that deals with photography or civil rights issues.
How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused
by being courteous and respectful. If
the party becomes pushy, combative,
or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good
judgment and dont allow an event to
escalate into violence.
In the event you are threatened with
detention or asked to surrender your
film, asking the following questions
can help ensure that you will have the
evidence to enforce your legal rights:
1. What is the persons name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do
they intend to stop you if you decide
to leave? What legal basis do they
assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film,
what legal basis do they assert for the
confiscation?
Disclaimer
This is a general education guide
about the right to take photographs
and is necessarily limited in scope.
For more information about the laws
that affect photography, I refer you to
the second edition of my book, Legal
Handbook for Photographers (Amherst
Media, 2006).
This guide is not intended to be legal
advice nor does it create an attorney
client relationship. Readers should
seek the advice of a competent attorney when they need legal advice
regarding a specific situation.
published by:

Bert P. Krages II
Attorney at Law
6665 S.W. Hampton Street, Suite 200
Portland, Oregon 97223
www.krages.com

2003 Bert P. Krages II