Comments on: Proposed Ban Could Kill Aerial Photography

By: Domagoj Kunic

Domagoj Kunic — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:17:00 +0000

And how about this?

Let’s ban people!

It’s the only way to keep people from doing stuff some schmuck in a government suit wouldn’t want people to do…

And while we’re at it, let’s ban some books too!

And it’s okay for those drones to butcher kids in Pakistan because they’ll all grow up to be terrorist anyway, right?

Man, fstoppers was so great until folks started agreeing with any prick’s law amendment…

By: Nismode

Nismode — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:09:00 +0000

Sounds like Mayor Bloomberg’s reasoning for his soft drink ban. I’d hate to have you in public office lol.

By: DaveBrooks

DaveBrooks — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:49:00 +0000

AGBeat was talking about an old version of the bill that had been left online. It now only concerns the use of drones: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/statenewengland/995218-469/n.h.-bill-would-curtail-use-of-drones.html

By: Jens Melgaard

Jens Melgaard — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:49:00 +0000

Isn’t “supported by the ground” open for an even more broad interpretation, if you actively remote control a drone, aren’t it being supported by ground?…

In opposed to a pre-programmed intelligent drone that can make it’s flight without any interaction with the ground?

By: Brendan Cherry

Brendan Cherry — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:26:00 +0000

I don’t know who you’re talking about when you say ‘most’. All the aerial videography that I’ve seen are clearly for clients (a house sale or similar) or obviously a short film where everyone in the shot would presumably have signed release forms. Of course there are the extreme wide shots but any person seen in them (including buildings and man made items!) is generally incidental.

This sounds like pretty much the stupidest rule. Next it will be illegal to take photos of the earth from the international space station…

By: Brendan Cherry

Brendan Cherry — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 02:23:00 +0000

It’s an aerial photo, that’s why

By: Stacy Wiener

Stacy Wiener — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 01:02:00 +0000

This is a good ban. It’s hard to swallow for some but overall it’s a good thing. Most ariel photographers in the US don’t practice proper procedures when it comes to clearance for their UAV’s. The reason it’s a blanket ban is simply because blanket bans work. Banning a small part of something doesn’t work as people always find a way to manipulate that.
As far as peoples professions go, my heart goes out to them, but it happens. If their fellow ariel photographer/videographers would practice by following the rules this probably wouldn’t happen but at this point it seems like the only practical solution.

Whether or not it’s clear to you, this information is highly sensitive. Publishing such imagery is and always has been illegal. Now they’re just enforcing the law better.

Back to kites!

Man Fstoppers was so great until they started having additional writers writing about topics without doing any research first, or having dumb opinions or not even reading previous posts by Fstoppers. I would prefer less content with more of the original types of content than the current constant rubbish.

By: Stefan Parol

Stefan Parol — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:56:00 +0000

Why did you post a picture of an european city? Makes no sense…

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:39:00 +0000

Neal Kurk is not a Senator, he is a Rep in the New Hampshire House of Representatives

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Neal_Kurk
And by the way the bill is worded Rep. Kurk is not particularly bright..
Here is his email, let him know what you think of his bill. neal.kurk@leg.state.nh.us

By: Tom McInerney

Tom McInerney — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:08:00 +0000

I could be wrong but this bill will affect News helicopters….and what are the movie producers going to do shoot all movie scenes from a moving vehicle. Oh and I guess the NFL can kiss the blimp goodbye!