Charges dismissed against Kentucky man who shot down drone for invasion of privacy

A Kentucky man was arrested and charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment earlier this year for shooting down a drone with a camera. This week, a judge dismissed all charges against William Merideth, saying that witness testimony corroborated the man’s story that the drone was flying close to his property and family.

Local news station WDRB reports that Meredith claims the drone had hovered near his property six times in one year, including three times in one day. He has a 16-year-old daughter who lays in their yard near a pool, and he was worried that the drone operator was photographing her. After shooting down the drone, there was a confrontation between Meredith and the drone operator. In WDRB’s initial report on the drone shooting, Meredith is quoted saying, “They asked me, ‘Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?’ and I said, ‘Yes I am,'” he said. “I had my 40 mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, ‘If you cross my sidewalk, there’s gonna be another shooting.'”

Weeks after the initial shooting, Kentucky State Representative Diane St. Onge (R) pre-filed a bill in the legislature that would define and limit drone surveillance. The Electronic Privacy Information Center has a good page collating recent and upcoming legislation around the US regarding the use of drones. For what it’s worth, the FAA warns that shooting a drone can be dangerous and violates laws against shooting at airplanes.

I’ve previously written a bit about drones as they relate to photojournalism, by the way.

And just for the heck of it, here’s a video of a guy saving his drone from the ocean after it lost power mid-flight.

FAA says journalists can’t use drones but can buy drone-created photos/video from hobbyists

In what strikes me as a very strange distinction, the FAA has said this week that journalists and media organizations may not use drones for their newsgathering operations without permission, though they may purchase photos and video from hobbyists that they do not employ.

American journalists and media organizations have been pushing the FAA to rule whether or not they can legally use drones for newsgathering for some time now. In March of last year, a judge ruled that commercial drone use is legal in the US, though the FAA appealed the ruling.

A person who wishes to operate a UAS to take pictures or videos or gather other information that would be sold to media outlets would need an FAA authorization for the operation”FAA, Media Use of UAS, May 5, 2015

Now, in a memorandum issued May 5, 2015 (embedded above), the FAA says using a drone specifically for newsgathering, whether it’s a news organization or a freelancer intending to sell the work to a publication, requires FAA permission as does any other “non-hobby” usage of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or drones). However, if a hobbyist happens to take pictures or video and a media organization wants to license that work for news purposes, the FAA says that is okay because the flight is considered authorized.

Hopefully, there will be legal challenges to this memorandum. Both a Forbes contributor and Vice Motherboard have more coverage of this memorandum, raising concerns about the restrictions this places on the press. The memo makes me think of last year’s controversy over proposed US National Forest regulations regarding photography on public lands.

On this subject, do yourself a favor and check out Tomas van Houtryve‘s Blue Sky Days project, if for some strange reason you haven’t seen it yet. It’s been widely published and awarded, and for good reason. The project is the most creative and insightful investigation of American drone warfare that I’ve seen. I saw him present the work to a small crowd a couple weeks ago at the Magenta Foundation‘s Flash Forward Festival in Boston. If he’s presenting in your area, his presentations are well worth checking out.

Wal-Mart of Photography Entrepreneur facing $90 million in lawsuits

First, sports collectors who bought what they thought were original items from Rogers began crying ‘fake.’ Then a series of people Rogers did business with started suing him over unpaid bills. Finally, the FBI raided his place, and he was tossed out of the business, a receiver appointed to make sense of the mess.”The strange saga of John Rogers…, MinnPost

This remains one of the strangest photography-related stories I’ve run across. In 2013, I first wrote about the Rogers Photo Archive‘s efforts to buy up old newspaper photography archives. Rogers claimed to be making $120,000 per week in a 2012 interview, mostly by selling prints, posters, and original negatives from these archives on eBay. Now the entrepreneur is facing at least $90 million in lawsuits and his operation has basically been shut down. The business was raided by the FBI, Rogers was ousted, and the operation has been placed into receivership, according to a piece published this week by MinnPost.

Screenshot of Rogers Photo Archive website - 17 April 2015
Screenshot of Rogers Photo Archive website – 17 April 2015

Rogers had negotiated the purchase of original negatives of millions of photos from newspaper archives across the US, Australia, and New Zealand, including the McClatchy Company, the St. Petersburg Times, the Denver Post, the Detroit Free Press, the Sydney Morning Herald, and others. The Rogers Photo Archive would then restore damaged negatives, digitize and archive the images, and then both give the original newspapers a digital archive (see “What We Do” section of the homepage) and sell images through eBay and its own licensing firm, Argenta Images (link not work as of this writing).

It’s hard to find evidence of the eBay sales now, though there remain a few eBay stores with names similar to Argenta Images and which are operated by accounts with tens of thousands of transactions. All of these stores have 0 active items as of this writing. I can’t say for certain whether they were run by the Rogers Photo Archive, but I’d bet they were.

According to MinnPost, the entire operation has now come crashing down. There are now “more than a dozen lawsuits” aimed at Rogers, seeking in total more than $90 million. Sports collectors thought they had been buying original items but allege that Rogers was selling reproductions (interestingly, Rogers first made news when he bought a 1909 Honus Wagner baseball card in 2008). Then businesses came after the archive for unpaid bills and the business has been taken over in receivership.

One of the lawsuits against the Rogers Archive has been brought by Fairfax Media, a New Zealand newspaper company that sold the photo archives of 72 New Zealand newspapers and a number of Australian papers to Rogers. In May 2013, Fairfax sold the photo archives, approximately 8 million images, but did not receive the digitized archive before the Rogers Photo Archive’s recent troubles. The New Zealand Herald says that the sale of the images to Rogers took place only after the country’s Ministry of Culture and Heritage “granted Fairfax a temporary export permit under the Protected Object Act.” The Ministry told the NZ Herald that it is “concerned” about the fate of this historical archive and that it “reserves the right to take action as appropriate.”

(via a friend on Facebook)