Well, four days ago we shot two weddings, both of which we decided to try something new. For months we have been researching aerial cinematography and have been sitting on the fence for quite some time about rather to invest in an aerial system or not. It's been very tough deciding if it would be worth it or not with the risks involved. Our main concerns where:
1. If we crashed the thing we would be out a substantial amount of money (nearly $20,000 with heli, camera, and lens, etc.)
2. Piloting... try to fly it ourselves or hire an experienced pilot?
3. Would it look good? Would we get the results we where hoping for?
4. Would it be practical for a wedding?
5. Maintenance, adjustments, etc.... it's hard enough keeping up all the camera equipment we have already.

Well, this last weekend we set out to run a few "TESTS" and I'm pretty happy with the results!

Lindsey + Luke | Wedding Highlights on Vimeo

I'm only posting one of the videos for now as we are working out some kinks on the other. We learned a lot on these two weddings that will help us out a ton on the coming weddings... thinking of taking it out again this weekend. Here is what we found:
1. Crashing is no longer a concern, we are lucky to have found a world class pilot who is sponsored by many different helicopter and helicopter parts vendors and has traveled the world competing in world championships. He is remarkable and we've managed to hire him!
2. We've found it take YEARS to be good enough to fly one of these... hence we've hired a pilot.
3. It looks great! However there are a lot of kinks to work out... VIBRATION (especially with DSLR shooting and rolling shutter) is your biggest enemy and we are investing in some sophisticated equipment to give us better results.
4. It is TOTALLY practical for a wedding.... at least the wedding in this video. When we brought it up to the b+g they where all over it! The Helicopter is electric so it's pretty quite... although it is still noisy... I would put it at about as loud as a weed-wacker. We where worried about doing a low flyover during the ceremony so we waited until AFTER the kiss... we timed it so it would happen while the recessional music was cranking and people where clapping... none of the guests heard or saw it until after it had passed over them! Of course we where mobbed by guests afterwards asking questions... it was all positive and people seemed to be very excited about it.
5. There is minimal maintenance, but there is some. We've got a tech who will be taking care of this for us and doing tuneups and pre-flight checks. Along with this comes liability insurance which isn't as much as you'd think.

We're pretty excited to be offering this to our clients both wedding and corporate. I would love your feedback on the video.

This is way cool. When do we get to see a pic of the chopper, etc?

Andrew

Andrew for much of my pre-wedding video life I sat on the side of helicopters with various film, still and video cameras, I hold a private pilot's licence myself and, as if that wasn't enough our third cameraman is an experienced model plane pilot. I therefore looked at your work with great interest.

I can't boast that we've ever got to your level of development and for that I congratulate you, but we have chatted about the possibilities.

The main stumbling blocks here in the UK are legalities, permissions, insurance, to add to the common elements, lift capacity, vibration and noise.

However, may I suggest that more effective use might be made of the helo in circling shots, keeping the wedding group for example in the frame whilst the helo revolves around it. Because we never had the budget to hire gyro-controlled gear (Wescam etc) we developed techniques with our pilot which basically required me, the cameraman to make the vertical movements whilst the lateral ones would be made by the helo. To help him do that we provided a 9inch monitor in the space beside him. Since all your camera movements are controlled by the pilot the comparison is valid. It raises a question which we have to address with our radio controlled high viewpoint camera, and that is the ability to monitor the camera. Are you able to see what the camera's recording ie do you have a downlink?

I don't know to what extent your laws in California permit but other shots we found very effective were travelling shots alongside road vehicles driving at speed. The helo is at vehicle height before moving ahead of the vehicle, rising above it, turning to keep it in frame and allowing the vehicle to pass beneath it. Those shots were mainly for title sequences and were shot with buses, double and single deck on an airfield near Manchester.

The other shots we found very effective were slow vertical rises to hover. We did that in front of dock gates in Chatham, over a UK nuclear sub in Barrow, alongside trains at various points along the London - Glasgow railway line.

If you'll allow one suggestion/criticism it is that the travel was quite fast and I wonder if the shots wouldn't have been even more effective if flown more slowly. I realise the camera weight/lift capacity of the helo are factors which might have prevented this but it would have been good to see.

In general though, big congratulations.

Andrew... I'll get a photo up soon.

Philip... We are lucky I guess here in the states as there are no regulations that really restrict us in any way. The only restrictions is we have to keep it under 400 feet and have to stay away from airports.... which neither pose a problem.

Nice camerawork. Is it one person running both helicopter and camera?

I love the idea. This just takes HDM team up another notch.

If you can work out the wobbliness then it will be the talk of the town.

Shakewell

VERY cool.

I have some friends who have done kite-photography. Less control, for sure, but also less expensive.

Keep up the good work. Can't wait to see more.

Andrew, thank you so much for sharing this. I have been drooling over the idea of aerial videography for several months, but we are not up to scale yet. Is this a chopper that you built or had built, or is it available online for purchase? Is the chopper and camera controlled separately or does the camera just go along for the ride? Thanks again and I look forward to more video from the chopper.

I was just curious if anyone has done something like this with an RC blimp... It seems to me that an RC blimp would make a better plate form then RC helo's. Less vibration and slower moving. I know nothing about aerial videography, just curious.

Eitherway... Very cool and good job for making the plunge.

Steve

I've done it with a blimp and it's certainly smoother, less vibration etc but the major issues are size: blimps have to be much larger to carry the weight of the gear. And also you need a lot of helium and that's pretty expensive. Helium goes off and loses lift so you really only get one flight or a week out of the helium and it's virtually impossible to recover out of the blimp so you have to leave it setup.
The chopper idea is much better.
How about this though:
Draganflyer X8 Eight Rotor UAV Helicopter Aerial Video Platform (http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x8/)
Stable, quiet, cool!

What I liked most about this clip is how the aerial shots blended in with the rest of the footage. Aeial footage aside, a very nice highlight.

How about this though:
Draganflyer X8 Eight Rotor UAV Helicopter Aerial Video Platform (http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x8/)
Stable, quiet, cool!

I actually met the guy that invented that about 10 years ago when he was demonstrating a prototype. It's amazingly easy to fly, but the drawback is the payload capacity - only 1kg (2.2 lbs.) But you can get it pre-configured with a DSLR.

Oh yeah, it's about $32k!

We are lucky I guess here in the states as there are no regulations that really restrict us in any way. The only restrictions is we have to keep it under 400 feet and have to stay away from airports.... which neither pose a problem.Are you sure about that? I thought that a few years ago that all commercial aerial photography with model planes & helicopters was banned by the FAA. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/145993-rc-aerials-illegal-says-faa.html Did this all fizzle out?

The main stumbling blocks here in the UK are legalities, permissions, insurance, to add to the common elements, lift capacity, vibration and noise.It used to be that aircraft under 7kg were pretty much unregulated but the regulations in the UK were tightened up significantly at the beginning of 2010. Flying model planes as a hobby is reasonably unregulated as long as you keep below 400 feet & away from airports but now as soon as you put a camera on-board your model aircraft it becomes a Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft & without permission from the CAA (UK equivalent of FAA) you must not fly within 50m of people & vehicles amongst many other restrictions. In addition any "Aerial Work" which includes any commercial aerial photography requires the operator to be tested & certified. In one of the documents explaining the regulations they define "Aerial Work" by saying that accepting a pint of beer is OK but accepting a whole crate of beer makes it "Aerial Work"

I
How about this though:
Draganflyer X8 Eight Rotor UAV Helicopter Aerial Video Platform (http://www.draganfly.com/uav-helicopter/draganflyer-x8/)
Stable, quiet, cool!

I actually met the guy that invented that about 10 years ago when he was demonstrating a prototype. It's amazingly easy to fly, but the drawback is the payload capacity - only 1kg (2.2 lbs.) But you can get it pre-configured with a DSLR.

Oh yeah, it's about $32k!If you are not the military or a law enforcement agency so your budget is more modest then the Mikrokopter is worth a look. It uses the same principle of multiple rotors & clever software (Open Source in this case) to keep the machine flying level & stable. It comes in various configurations & can lift over 1kg (2.2lbs) so can carry a decent size camera. MikroKopter - Wiki: MikroKopter.de (http://www.mikrokopter.de/)

You can get everything from a kit of parts where you solder the 'brain' yourself right up to a fully assembled system for the equivalent of about $2300 to which you just need to add a R/C transmitter & batteries.

I did a lot of investigation on this subject a few months back & was seriously interested in kitting myself out for shooting stills & video but then discovered all the rules & regulations that now govern this space. I may yet still invest in one of these beauties which are evidently much easier to fly than a regular model helicopter which by all accounts are just as difficult & challenging as a full sized one. It certainly looks to be a lot of fun.

We're pretty excited to be offering this to our clients both wedding and corporate. I would love your feedback on the video.In all my excitement to reply on other points in this thread I forgot to say how fabulous the aerial shots look that you have incorporated into the video. I have been toying with the idea of using a camera equipped Mikrokoptor for adding the Wow factor of aerial views to our videos. Seeing what you have done just confirms that my idea was good. That is very nice work & also extra points for avoiding the temptation to overdo the use of aerial shots.

Thanks guys for the feedback.... I will get some photos up soon of the helicopter we are using. We are taking it back out tomorrow for another wedding. Here is the other wedding we shot the same day as the other. Take a look!

Jen + Rick | Wedding Highlights on Vimeo

I forgot to mention that both videos where shot WITHOUT a gimbal, gyros, or addition stabilization. The camera was locked off on the fuselage and so all camera movements where made via rudder movements only. We're waiting on our 3-axis gimbal assembly, gyros, and stabilization software. After we have that, stuff will start to look A LOT better! I have another wedding in the morning and we'll be using the chopper again... we're slowly working out the kinks. Very excited!

Ok... finally getting around to posting pictures... This first shot is our "current" setup, a modified and stretched Logo 600 (700 class equivalent) with the camera fixed to the fuselage.... it works, but it's not ideal... especially with rolling shutter and vibration issues... not to mention having to fly blind. It's like using a steadicam without an lcd screen on the sled OR the camera... you're just guessing. So, we are investing in a REAL system complete with 3-axis camera gimbal, computerized camera stabilization, gps, telemetry, video downlink, etc. It's costing a pretty penny, but will be worth it.... at least that's what I'm telling my wife! Can't wait for the glorious sound of the UPS truck pulling up to my studio!!!

Hey Andrew. I did some browsing around and found the following product.

Airfoil Helicam, Mini-Pro1 (http://www.airfoilhelicams.com/pro1lite_combo.php)

It looks pretty solid and allows you to pan/tilt and even can be fitted with a gyro and video downlink, which are both available on the same site.

Actually I was thinking of something like this:

TRIAX | AERIAL (http://www.triax-aerial.com/triax/products_new.htm)

What you did is really beautiful but is also very dangerous.

Basic safety rules or even common sense require you to have a safety zone around your flying path of at least 50m. And most of the commercial aerial video and photography drones have been officially grounded for the last few years in the US, every company is just going around regulation or playing words with the FAA as there has been no real solution. You'll find hunders of discussions like this one on the specialized forums:
Legal Issues For Aerial Photography - Page 1 - RunRyder RC Helicopter (http://rc.runryder.com/helicopter/t557485p1/)

Your shot above the wedding crowd is totally reckless, imagine you had you bird go down on these people! Plus you were flying so low that if it had gone down you had no way to deviate your course enough for avoiding these people. These are killing blades, and they were not small ones cause for lifting a Red I know the horsepower required on these kind of ships... My God this is scaring the hell out of me just looking at it.

Can't believe you had an insurance signing off on those kind of shots. Or maybe you should send me their contact the next time I want to put a 5 year old kid driving on the highway in reverse.

I imagine your pilot told you that it was ok to do so. Maybe he did not warned you about the potential criminal charges you, him and the producer of this piece could be facing. You should take this video out of the internet right away and pray for that nobody reports you.

If you are not the military or a law enforcement agency so your budget is more modest then the Mikrokopter is worth a look. It uses the same principle of multiple rotors & clever software (Open Source in this case) to keep the machine flying level & stable. It comes in various configurations & can lift over 1kg (2.2lbs) so can carry a decent size camera. MikroKopter - Wiki: MikroKopter.de (http://www.mikrokopter.de/)

You can get everything from a kit of parts where you solder the 'brain' yourself right up to a fully assembled system for the equivalent of about $2300 to which you just need to add a R/C transmitter & batteries.
.
I'd looked at this myself but couldn't find anywhere that I could buy a complete kit (assembled). Do you know of somewhere?

Amaud,

I appreciate your concern, but I think you might be a jumping to judgement a little too quickly here and blowing this way out of proportion... especially without knowing the whole story here. First, it was the groom's idea for the shot and the bride quickly jumped on board and we weren't going to say no the client on her wedding day. To this day there has only been ONE reported death due to an RC helicopter... and it was a FREAK accident with a gas powered heli. Our helicopter is electric, NOT gas and has safeguards such as a kill switch that would make this nearly impossible. Second... it just LOOKS like we are flying low, but believe me lenses have a good way of fooling the eye. Our pilot is WORLD CLASS and is sponsored by many companies and "crashing" is not an option. Although not impossible, a mechanical failure isn't going to "KILL" anyone. I'm probably just as likely to kill the bride with my jib or seriously injure her by getting a Steadicam shot that was a little "too" close. My point here is, you don't need to be concerned with my clients safety, ESPECIALLY without knowing the whole story or knowing what safeguards we have in place. Unlike most videographers out there we actually do have insurance. I will not be taking this video down and won't even be considering it. You are more than welcome to blow the whistle on this one if you'd like. Maybe RC models regulations are strict in France, but in the US they aren't regulated yet. I don't want you or anyone else to get the impression we are just throwing caution to the wind, that's certainly not the case here, but you have to understand that you can't possible know or even begin to understand what went into a production without even being there.

I'll get off my soapbox now :) Time to make some films!

Heck, Arnaud, my kids want to get the AirHogs helicopters with video cameras... I'm not worried about "blades o' death"... and I don't think anyone will be coming by to arrest anyone playing with one of those toys, which are basically small versions of what Andrew is talking about...

After looking at the link, with all the other broken links that supposedly supported your post (which seems to be a bit paranoid, and borders on trolling, not allowed here on DVi), I'm not seeing ANY substance, just a lot of speculation and FUD.

I've played around with an R/C simulator, and frankly I won't be doing any heli flying anytime soon <VBG>, but I'm intrigued by the potential, with the proper aircraft and rigging AND a good pilot, I see no reason this wouldn't be as safe as crossing the street.

The first time some dumb Papparazzi does something stupid with an aerial rig, I suppose there will be issues, but ust because people can find something stupid to do with almost any piece of technology, doesn't mean you can legislate stupidity... or we'd all be in trouble!

I suppose there will be issues, but ust because people can find something stupid to do with almost any piece of technology, doesn't mean you can legislate stupidity... or we'd all be in trouble!

Especially wedding photographers!

<grin>

Andrew

I'm surprised and a little disappointed with some of the reaction to what's been described as Arnaud's "paranoia". I'm not qualified to decide whether it is paranoia or not but it seems to me that if there's any danger of even superficially injuring a guest with a spinning rotor blade let alone taking out an eye or disfiguring a face then we should be cautious rather than cavalier.

Any amount of insurance won't compensate for the negative publicity that could ensue from an accident - and remember that many of us live in innately litigious societies.

Were I in Andrew's place I think I'd want to check out the details again. Just my view.

Philip,

You are absolutely right. It is something that one should be very cautious about... and also maybe you are not qualified to decide. Of course there is an element of danger, but I would say no less than using a jib. The thing that freaks people out is a spinning rotor, this isn't the set of The Twilight Zone... It's not a full scale heli and technology has come A LONG way and these things are VERY safe. In the blink of an eye.... at the first indication that there is something wrong or some sort of failure the rotors could be locked and stoping instantly. With electric your worst case scenario is far from disfigurement... yes it's going hurt... but so is getting wacked in the head with a Jib because the operator wasn't paying attention... ok I'm sure it's going to hurt a lot more than that, but you see my point. You can find danger in just about anything in every day life.

Andrew, I'm sorry but I don't see your point. I am not qualified to diagnose paranoia - I am qualified to know that taking unreasonable and unnecessary risks with your clients and their guests isn't a sound way to run a business.

I'm sure a lot of New Yorkers remember the the New York Jets fan who was killed by an out-of-control RC aircraft during a half-time show. So any concern is not paranoia and certainly not trolling. I was really surprised and concerned when I first saw this post. Could you explain in more detail how this is safer than before. You mentioned a kill switch, but is this really effective? And I´m sorry, but "the groom really wanted it" is not a justification for anything.

Don´t get me wrong, this could be a fine thing to do. I'm just skeptical and need more persuasion. By the way, the shots are great, except for the turns, which are a little wobbly.

I don't want anyone to think we are just throwing caution to the wind here. This is very different than the infamous "flying lawnmower" which was a gas powered plane. That was 1979 and there is a huge difference between 30 year old gas powered technology and the electric technology of today. I have to reiterate, I'm not making excuses for why we did what we did, but you have to fully understand the technology before making a judgment. I just typed in the words killed... wedding... accident... death... into google and I'm shocked to see some of the horrible things that have happened to people at their weddings. It's seems like I'm taking a lot of flak on this thread when it's those horrible limo drivers we should be concerned about! What would you think is more dangerous, Bowling or Paintball... if your guessed Bowling, you are wrong. Paintball is statistically safer than Bowling... or even Tennis. Why? Safe guards... sure a lot of people are going to thing hurling balls at high speeds at peoples heads is totally unsafe, but those same people don't understand the sport, technology, and the safe guards that are in place. You are far more likely to hurt yourself or others with a bowling ball and America's Funniest Home Videos has proven that time and time again. Again... not downplaying safety in ANY way. At the same time don't be so quick to judge without fully understanding everything that was behind getting "The" shot. Anyway... hoping down from my soapbox for now/ :) I do appreciate the input... don't get me wrong.

Not to make too fine a point of it, but some 17 y.o. clown plowed through a red light and killed a pedestrian and flipped a huge school bus over... so should all Beemers be banned, because this one idiot used it improperly?


And we've all seen and been traumatized by the recent footage of innocent cameras being shattered by golf balls, hockey pucks and baseball bat fragments.

The PACC (People Against Cruelty to Cameras) is of course about to scream loudly for new standards where all future golf balls, hocky pucks and baseball bats must be "camera safe" and composed of soft foam like materials...

and the esteemed ambulance chasers (oops, honerable attorneys) Khan, Whee, Rheemum & Goode are putting together a class action lawsuit on behalf of the cameras ever damaged by flying objects, and of course a suit to compensate all the "victims" traumatized by the recklessness of all golf ball, hockey puck, and bat manufacturers, with manufacturers of "obejcts that can fly" expected to be added as "Does 4-10,000" as further facts about flying objects causing injury are uncovered...


<tongue removed from cheek>

Truly, rediculous lawsuits abound, so anything is possible, but getting out of bed can be DANGEROUS if improperly executed. It would appear that Andrew has put reasonable thought and taken appropriate steps in this undertaking. I don't think he's advocating going out and buying an R/C chopper, hooking up your cam and "flying a wedding" (from my simulator experience, neither would I!).

I actually appreciate the fact he sought out an experienced pilot and is taking this a step at a time, letting us in on what it takes. THAT is why the "new boot" poster coming in with a post (follow all the dead "links" in the link posted, you'll find FUD) making all sorts of wild and unsubstantiated claims struck me as "paranoia". Of if one prefers a "troll"...

Then again, I suppose I should get back to spray painting my tripods day-glo-orange and go get that order of traffic cones and caution tape that I'll be putting in a 15 foot perimeter around all my equipment in the future... gotta go! Anyone seen my tinfoil hat, I'm sure I had it here a moment ago, hope it wasn't sucked into another space-time rift by pan-dimensional aliens AGAIN!

Do you have a rider on your insurance to cover this?

Amaud,

I appreciate your concern, but I think you might be a jumping to judgement a little too quickly here and blowing this way out of proportion Unlike most videographers out there we actually do have insurance.

Andrew, please explain how you got insurance, or even permission to fly a helicopter during wedding events. Does your insurance company know you're flying a camera/copter over people? Did you contact the owner/manager of the event site beforehand to acquire permission of what you'll be doing?

I'm just asking because putting cameras on helicopters is not new, its been around for many years now. However, being able to LEGALLY fly at any event is very new to me.

I really didn't want this thread to turn into a what's legal what's not legal debate. Point is it's neither legal nor illegal. It's unregulated... by anyone. Besides having a blanket general liability insurance (That DOES include both full sized man and unmanned helicopters on a case by case basis) we have separate liability insurance for the electric heli through the AMA. There are stricter laws and regulations in other countries, but so far here in the good ol' U S of A there really isn't any.... yet. The AMA just cooperates with the FCC and FAA for now.

Andrew,

Thanks for sharing your work. It is really fantastic. Don't mind the fear-mongers. Fear is a great motivator for not taking risks and not improving your craft. If anybody knows the risks, it is people like you. If others get annoyed, angry or pissed at what you are doing, it means you are doing something right.

BTW, what model helicopter is that you are planning of upgrading to?

At my day job, I work with helicopters from an engienering perspective. All day. Everyday. And have been since 2004.

What I can tell you is, on real aircraft there are in depth (I'm talking literally thousands of pages) maintenance and inspection procedures. I don't know anything about RC aircraft, but I would hope that there are routine maintenance and inspection procedures that are gone over before flight (think pre-flight checks) and after flight. That would alleviate the vast majority of issues related to mechanical or system type failures.

I think the videos are pretty awesome.

My friends and I have been dicussing trying something like this off and on for about 3 or 4 years, but never got up the guts to try it.

Thanks Ian and Kyle!

Kyle, there is a lengthy pre-flight check list and very regular maintenance. We're working on acquiring a newer more cutting edge system that is a lot less complicated mechanically... more details on that later.

Second... it just LOOKS like we are flying low, but believe me lenses have a good way of fooling the eyes!
I have liability umbrella coverage for my business. I just showed your wedding clip of Lindsey and Luke to my insurance rep, specifically 1:09 where the helicopter clearly flies over the groomsmen less than 10 feet above their heads. She cringed, then told me that there would be absolutely no way ANY insurance company would approve this.

A very wide angle lens was obviously used to get that shot, which means that the camera must be closer to the subject to be effective, making the shot even more dangerous. My insurance company sees your helicopter as a 4 ft diameter carbon fiber knife, spinning at 2000rpm. Your video proved to her that the danger to innocent bystanders is very significant. She was so alarmed by what she saw that she even suggested contacting the forum administrator to delete this thread immediately. Chris Hurd, please take a look at the "Lindsey and Luke" footage 1:09. What do you think?

I hope you take more care than these people.

Quadcopter hits groom in the head. // Epic Fail - Seriously - YouTube

That particular video is being discussed in a dedicated thread:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/518364-arial-drone-crashes-into-groom.html

Sorry Pete. I thought I'd searched this forum for Groom, before posting, and didn't find it.

I'm not trolling but as stunning at these shots look... These RC helicopters are stunning tools for 'establishing shots' that's it.

I certainly wouldn't risk flying it during the wedding or over any people. You work so hard to build a reputation so it's not about insurance covering you. It's the negative publicity that would pursue afterwards should anything go wrong.

It's great you have a sponsored world class flyer so it might be ok for you, but any one else looking at this video and thinking of investing in a similar set up! think again!

Hi James

I agree...they would be great to fly over the Church the day before but over the guests is a no-no! I had a quadracopter for my GoPro and they are tricky little suckers to fly plus all you need is one failure (mine had quite a few)

If you are insistent on getting aerial shots of the wedding party then the guy who tied a bunch of helium balloons to his GoPro and ran it up above them on a line worked pretty well and fairly safe too. Shucks you don't have to be too high anyway otherwise your people will look like ants so more often than not a big lighting stand behind the ceremony with a GoPro on top works great and provides a nice overview.

Chris

I have a 7m (23ft) lighting stand that I put a GoPro on sometimes if there s an outdoor drinks reception at he wedding but I rarely run it up to full height for as Chris points out the people will look like ants if the. Camera is too high.

Agreed Nigel

You would have to keep a drone at least 50' high for safety reasons so people would be tiny. I have a hybrid stand which was my first stedicam docking stand which elevates up to nearly 3m and then I have "grafted" a standard 2 section lighting stand on top so I make just over 5m and that's normally more than enough. With the GoPro often as low as 2m gives the desired effect with the wide angle and brides love it too!

Chris

Not sure I agree that you need to fly so hi for safety reasons. I fly much lower around building and people depending on the environment. Also, GoPros are extremely wide, using an NEX with a 16mm looks great from about about 20-30 feet.

We are lucky I guess here in the states as there are no regulations that really restrict us in any way. The only restrictions is we have to keep it under 400 feet and have to stay away from airports.... which neither pose a problem.
Unfortunately, this is for non-commercial use only.
There is work in progress to provide regulations for commercial use of RC aerial filming/photography.
This is scheduled to 2015 (or maybe even 2014).
You should be able to find all this info at the FAA website.