The question happens to be the subject of an ongoing dispute between Warner Bros. and IATSE Local 600, the International Cinematographers Guild.
Friday, April 05, 2019
Hollywood's Drone War: Licensed Pilots or Unionized Photographers?
The question happens to be the subject of an ongoing dispute between Warner Bros. and IATSE Local 600, the International Cinematographers Guild.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This is a pretty interesting, tangled issue. It seems to me that Warner is seeing the drone operators as employees of a company they are hiring to fly drones, while the union is seeing the operators as individual subcontractors. The article explains that most people who are sufficiently licensed own their own drone company, which implies that whenever Warner hires a company to fly a drone, they are hiring the owner of the company. If they are paying the individual in question as an independent contractor, it definitely seems like the I.A. has a leg to stand on. The camera issue is also a bit thorny. If the drones have separate flight and camera controls, and if the camera could be operated by someone who does not have an FAA license, the situation is definitely analogous to the helicopter situation. If that is not the case, or if it is not possible to make a drone that works like that, then it seems to me that the drone operators are clearly operating cameras.
I always find it funny how issues like this, issues you would never expect, seem to pop up in the entertainment industry. That being said, this dispute makes a lot of sense. When thinking about flying a drone with a camera on it for cinematic use, it is hard to distinguish if that person is a cinematographer or not, but I think there are a few ways to make it clearer. To start, a lot of drones actually offer a "two pilot" option in a way. Many drones allow for you to have on remote that controls the location of the entire drone while having a completely separate controller for someone else to use that allows you to control the gimbal the camera is mounted to. I feel like this scenario can be thought of just like a camera on a car. The person operating the camera is clearly a camera operator, but is the driver of the car? I think this is going to be the best way to go about the situation.
I often find it difficult to fully understand all the rules and regulations that come with film unions. The article comments on how often this type of dispute occurs given the new technology that is entering the industry. I do however think it is unrealistic to expect production teams to hire union employees exclusively in fields with emerging technology. I think it is fair to assume that any applications that can be performed by a union worker should, most notably the camera operation on the drone, but when it comes to a specialty operation such as drone flight, it should be left to a trained professional that is operating his or her gear. That being said I wouldn’t be surprised to see this technology become more prominent in the industry making union affiliation a given. At the end of the day, I think this topic is fascinating, and I very much look forward to learning more about the outcome and what sort of regulations are made.
Much like Chris, the unions associated with the film industry have always confused me, due to the fact that I am least familiar with the film industry. However, as someone who has an FAA drone certification, I am very familiar with FAA drone laws and how pilots get paid. Part 107 is the FAA drone licensing test that a pilot must pass in order to be paid for the work that they do because getting paid is taking a person out of the recreational flying field. With that in mind, the article was correct in saying that most Part 107 drone pilots do run their own aerial photography businesses. Where the article lost me was when Warner Bros said that they did not want to be fined because they were not a licensed pilot. This confused me because the license follows the individual, not an entire production company. Hopefully, those pilots did get the money and insurance they were owed and as drone get more and more popular, unions will eventually have to flesh out the specifics of drone pilots for hire.
It's an interesting issue as technology is developed and advanced, mechanic or digital apparatus has become an extension of human bodies and a new field of laboring. In this case of Warner Brothers Studio, the key point that brings up conflict and controversy is how to classify a drone pilot who is employed by a drone company but actually works on the site pf filming or provide service to film studios. Back in Taiwan, I had the experience of working as an overhire for a studio in charge of programming for drone formations. During the whole progress of preparing for the drone flying show, I went through some issues of communication with and the extended testing and trouble shooting sessions of the company that developed the drones. For this case, I think it's important to carefully make the deal or subcontract when going on the agreement to work for a special project outside your affiliation.
Post a Comment