Utah’s film industry depends on drones – don’t ban them

Josh Jackson is like many Utah dads; he has a lot of kids, he does a lot of things outside and he has a lot of hobbies. But his favorite hobby also pays his bills. As a licensed drone camera operator, he spends hours in our mighty mountains shooting footage for his clients and using his trusty drone to capture their beauty. He saved up and made sure to do his research on the best drones on the market, and settled on a DJI Mavic series.

Just after celebrating 100 years of our thriving film industry here in Utah, a controversial ban on drones manufactured elsewhere is currently pending in Congress. While mandating the use of American-made products may seem like good policy – ​​as misleading as the term may be – there are many issues at stake for our local film industry. And people like Josh will suffer the consequences personally.

Millions of dollars are pumped into our state’s urban and rural economies each year by the film industry. Drones now enable more people to produce more film-quality content than ever before, showcasing the boundless beauty of Utah’s natural wilderness for enjoyment and commerce. Promoting the Utah Tourism Office’s Forever Mighty campaign appears to be the reason drones were made in the first place.

However, all of this could change if Congress passes HR 2864, the CCP Counter-Drone Act, which passed the House of Representatives this month and is currently being considered in the Senate. If passed, the controversial measure would ban the domestic purchase of drones produced by DJI, a private company headquartered in China, on the grounds that its drones pose a security threat.

Rather, it is an example of American businesses using the heavy hand of government to crush a competitor they cannot beat in the free market. The market fueled the technological wonders of the computer age. Consumer-rewarded innovation has transformed drones from little more than remote-controlled airplanes a few years ago into the sci-fi marvels of today. Targeting a specific company for a government ban – absent substantial evidence of a foreign threat – will result in reduced competition and worse alternatives.

In the short term, a ban on commercial drones threatens not only major Hollywood productions, but also local social media content creators, hobbyists, and everyone else who makes a living from their drone footage. Simply put, drones made in the United States have not kept up with those made outside the country. Banning the use of certain drones places a significant burden on videographers, which could have far-reaching consequences.

Good policy in recent years has led to an increase in jobs in the film and cultural sector of almost 36%. If this bill passes, it will impact our economy and the quality of content produced in our state will decline.

It’s easy to portray DJI and other internationally manufactured products in a bad light. No one wants to put our national security at risk. But DJI products are designed with privacy in mind by default. Flight logs, photos, videos, and mobile data (on consumer and enterprise drones) are not synced to DJI unless the end user chooses to opt-in. Additionally, DJI products are designed with a “local data mode,” which disables the connection between the Flight App and the Internet, and they regularly submit their products to independent audits.

Drone users can also opt out of the DJI flight app in favor of third-party apps developed by U.S.-based companies if that makes them more comfortable. Some will even say that they are safer to use than our cell phones. In fact, many of our first responders rely on these drones for a reason: they’re reliable, safe, and easy to use.

The restrictions proposed in this bill amount to protectionism under the guise of national security and massive government overreach in the purchasing decisions of millions of Americans. Congress should focus less on government overreach and dictating winners and losers in the free market, and more on issues that actually impact cybersecurity.

I hope Senators Lee and Romney will recognize the impact this type of legislation will have on Utahns like Jackson and others and vote to avoid unnecessary bans on the products we depend on.

Jackson once faced an urgent need from a customer and only got the footage because he could rely on his drone to take the photo. The results speak for themselves.

Jackson fears this bill will impact the quality of his video footage and his life.

“I own a DJI drone because they are the best on the market. We use several types of drones in the footage I produce and, frankly, we don’t care where it’s done,” he said. “We need to produce quality, high-end images for our customers and to be competitive we need to use drones made in Asia. This bill would make my current drone illegal for no reason and would have a real impact on filmmaking here in Utah.

With so many other pressing issues impacting our economy, we can hope that Congress can refocus its efforts and stay on course. It does not make sense to impose unfair and unnecessary bills that unintentionally destroy our film industry.

Britt Larsen is a former congressional and gubernatorial communications director who now has her own consulting firm, Livlyhood, which helps individuals and businesses create and share effective messages to find more joy in their work.