Watch and decide for yourself whether this was stupid or genius...

http://youtu.be/a9KZ3jgbbmI

Perhaps unwise from a safety perspective, but absolutely amazing artistically.

It really depends on what is on the ground underneath, in the area where the fireworks are being fired from and on the flight path back to the landing site in case of a hit, if they've got permission and if the operator has a clear view of the drone.

Nice shots, needs something to use them with in cinematic terms.

I see the day coming when you can only fly over your own property as a hobbyist and other property only if you are a licensed operator.

........ decide for yourself whether this was stupid or genius...
Both. Genius in that they are undeniably spectacular images. Stupid in that they can only fuel the case of those who would prefer to legislate drones out of existence. If they encourage others to imitate, it can only eventually end in tears - either physically and/or legally. There must be a risk of a drone being hit by a firework, and the latter possibly exploding somewhere it shouldn't. More likely is that an organiser may feel forced to halt a display if an object is seen in the area - and think of the newspaper headlines the following day....... "Thousands disappointed as display ruined by irresponsible drone operator!"

That aside, the video could do with better editing, and in particular cutting out a few repositioning twitches - there really are some spectacular shots in there, but the best are when the camera is stable. (Which it is most of the time.)

That video have gotten so popular that GoPro decided to put some of that guy's fireworks footage on the GoPro YouTube channel.
GoPro: Fireworks From A Drone - YouTube

I've had to video fireworks from the ground many times, but having a drone in the air would be an interesting alternative, especially when the fireworks are reasonably offset from the crowd, or it's being done as a promo for the fireworks company.

Not sure I'd want to put that much cash in harm's way though!

What part is stupid? He's flying it over the water where the aerial shells are being fired over. It's not a drone, it's a multirotor radio control toy. The only people who call it a drone is the media and someone wanting the video to go viral in part by using the word drone so the media will pick up on it.

It's not a drone, it's a multirotor radio control toy.

The only people who call it a drone is the media and someone wanting the video to go viral in part by using the word drone so the media will pick up on it.

Dictionary definitions of drone:

• A continuous low humming sound

• A monotonous speech

• A continuous musical note of low pitch

• A male bee in a colony of social bees, which does no work but can fertilize a queen

• A remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile

Whoa, there we go.... could a multirotor possibly be a remote controlled pilotless aircraft?

Just to be sure, let's look up aircraft:

• any machine capable of flying by means of buoyancy or aerodynamic forces, such as a glider, helicopter, or aeroplane

Let's not get picky about whether a multirotor is a helicopter or not (perhaps the dictionaries will update in time), and we may not like the negative emotions the term evokes in people, but seriously, 'drone' seems a perfectly useable word for this type of device.

Flying A Drone Through Fireworks May Land You In Prison - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/04/video-shows-drone-flying-through-fireworks/)

The backpedaling in that article in response to the comments is pretty funny.

This from an aviation perspective...

Drones and Fireworks: Is This Really Stupid? - AVweb Insider Article (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Drones-and-Fireworks-Is-This-Really-Stupid-222297-1.html)

Nearly 7 million views and nearly 4,000 subscribers just because of that one video. It's too bad he had to use copyrighted music because if he had eighter kept the audio or used royalty free music, he would have made enough money to get a far more expensive drone and a nice camera to go with it like a Panasonic GH4 or Sony AX100.

The backpedaling in that article in response to the comments is pretty funny.

Agreed. That was a horribly written, sensational, squishy-vague-what if-maybe-could have, should, might have could be article. Junk.

Since some seem to want to reply upon a dictionary definition of a drone, make sure you keep consistent and call the next kids' paper airplane a drone or pilotless aircraft.

"Phalanx" elsewhere wrote this most excellent rant:

You know, honestly, I just can't stand all of the useless press on "Drones". If it is an RC airplane, it is a drone. If it is a model helicopter, it is a drone. If it is a weather balloon, it is a drone. If you put a Gopro on a hang glider, some news agency will call it a drone.. If you put a Gopro on an ultralight aircraft, someone will call it a drone. A quadracopter is only as safe as the person operating it. As with anything else, the operator is responsible for all property damage that occurs from it crashing. Now, take Yosemite, they say you can't fly a drone in the park because it could cause injury to someone..... But, they will allow you to climb the side of a sheer face cliff, you can hang glide from the side of the mountains, and that's ok. Some how, neither of those are considered dangerous to others.... In addition, neither of those requires ANY license. Let's hop into an ultra light aircraft for a second.... It can weigh less than 254 lbs and requires ABSOLUTELY NO license to operate it. You can launch a weather balloon with 12 lbs of weight in it and launch it all the way into space... Not a single license is required. None of these things require a license.. All of these things could cause injury to a person. But, for some reason, "drones" are considered dangerous and can't be allowed...

This from an aviation perspective...

Drones and Fireworks: Is This Really Stupid? - AVweb Insider Article (http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Drones-and-Fireworks-Is-This-Really-Stupid-222297-1.html)

This seemed like the most sensible writing on the event I've read so far.

In that article there is a link to the Academy of Model Aeronautics guidelines: http://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf

Part of the problem seems to be that quite a few users don't seem to follow any guidelines, which doesn't really help the situation. Also, the uses that drones are being put to aren't always covered by the requirements for flying traditional model aircraft.

........You can launch a weather balloon with 12 lbs of weight in it and launch it all the way into space... Not a single license is required. None of these things require a license.. All of these things could cause injury to a person. But, for some reason, "drones" are considered dangerous and can't be allowed...

While I totally sympathise with your thoughts, I have a feeling that once you mount a camera on them and start selling the footage then licences would be required, at least here in the UK. Anything that's airborne that has a camera and you use for commercial gain is going to need a licence AND insurance.

There are regulations for weather balloons (or fine print for their free use) and there's also a recovery system for the payload i.e a parachute. I don't think there's any issue with them carrying cameras.

http://cdn.makezine.com/make/24/Make24_weatherballoon_11x17.pdf

There are regulations pertaining to free balloons. In the USA you would need to publish a NOTAM announcing the intent to launch the balloon, e.g. How to File a HIBAL NOTAM (http://www.projecttraveler.org/index.php/how-to-s/31-how-to-file-a-hibal-notam)

We sent a Panasonic GH4 and Sony AX100 out with a client over the holiday weekend. Hopefully we'll have a report soon.

In terms of responsibility, if the drone is flown over an area that holds no people, the only loss that can occur is to the person flying the drone. Regulations don't control idiots.

In terms of responsibility, if the drone is flown over an area that holds no people, the only loss that can occur is to the person flying the drone.
Not necessarily, it depends on distances but it's quite plausible that a large firework could hit a drone, be damaged and deflected obliquely downwards. May not be likely, but it's only got to happen once.....

Likewise, a damaged drone could then veer off sideways to travel a fair distance before crashing.

Maybe more likely is that if the person in charge of the display sees an object amongst the fireworks, they'll abort the display.
Regulations don't control idiots.
That is simply not true. Regulations may not stop all idiotic behaviour, but they can severely limit it. I've already given the example of drink driving laws - it may be true that you still hear about some really stupid behaviour (and it's consequences), but it's a fraction of what it was when there were no laws.

In the past, if you drove under the influence of alcohol it was only legally relevant if there was an accident. With the regulation it's an offence, period, even if no accident. Result is far fewer people driving about with too many drinks - and a big reduction in death and injury.

Not necessarily, it depends on distances but it's quite plausible that a large firework could hit a drone, be damaged and deflected obliquely downwards. May not be likely, but it's only got to happen once.....

Likewise, a damaged drone could then veer off sideways to travel a fair distance before crashing.

Maybe more likely is that if the person in charge of the display sees an object amongst the fireworks, they'll abort the display.

That is simply not true. Regulations may not stop all idiotic behaviour, but they can severely limit it. I've already given the example of drink driving laws - it may be true that you still hear about some really stupid behaviour (and it's consequences), but it's a fraction of what it was when there were no laws.

In the past, if you drove under the influence of alcohol it was only legally relevant if there was an accident. With the regulation it's an offence, period, even if no accident. Result is far fewer people driving about with too many drinks - and a big reduction in death and injury.

Or my personal favorite - worthless, half-assed laws that are all but unenforceable such as texting while driving. In most cases they are secondary offenses, meaning the person can only be cited for texting if pulled over for a more severe, primary offense. I do a lot of driving; nine times out of ten when a car is weaving or almost causes an accident, they usually have a phone in hand. The texting while driving problem is a much more ubiquitous (and deadly) one compared to drones and is not improving but rather getting worse. I have every expectation that drone rules will be almost as effective, considering that one in ten now own a Phantom.

I'm not sure how mobile phone texting affects aviation law any more than any other. in the sense that there is commonly an element of getting away with it. The same also applies to drinking and driving, burglary and various other illegal activities. That doesn't stop them being against the law and there being a penalty if caught in the process.

Or my personal favorite - worthless, half-assed laws that are all but unenforceable such as texting while driving. In most cases they are secondary offenses, ......
Unenforceable!? I don't think so! It was made an offence in it's own right in 2003 in the UK, and apparently since then about one million prosecutions have been made - Fines for using mobile phone while driving to increase to £90 | Money | theguardian.com (http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/may/09/fines-mobile-phone-driving-increase)

And no - all such regulations haven't stopped drink driving, texting behind the wheel or a host of other practices, but all the evidence is that they have REDUCED such behaviour, and there are many less accidents as a result.

Nothing I've written should be seen as "anti-drone", quite the opposite. But I do fear that the more examples of irresponsible usage come to light, the more draconian the reaction will be. The responsible users will pay the price for the irresponsible, if you like. And that's why I think (sensible) regulation is a good thing. It won't stop all the "stupid" stories, but is likely to limit them.

Much like the "Friends don't let friends drive drunk" campaign, I think RC Aircraft/quadcopter/octocopter/drone operators should start a "Remote pilots don't let remote pilots do incredibly asinine stuff that will likely cause the industry/hobby/pursuit to be destroyed by incompetence/stupidity/arrogance" campaign.

I'm seeing more and more video folk of ALL persuasions exhibiting sociopathic tendencies in terms of "getting the shot" with reckless disregard for anyone or anything.

Grow up.

Seriously. Stop the stupidity across the board.

Flying a device that runs on lithium cells into or close to fireworks???

Seriously???

Do you also play Russian Roulette for kicks?