Sure is fun how actions after the fact can change the legality of something like this. I seriously doubt there was any intent at the time of filming to generate income.
Is the flight of the drone illegal then? Ridiculous logic.
We can use them to kill innocent children who happen to be at a party where some scumbag is hanging out, but don't film your birthday party and upload it to youtube! Don't try to sell your house with a video featuring using a drone to show the roof is in good condition! Oh no! This is the end!
After sort of passively watching it while doing other things, one of the episodes in the marathon was a "behind the scenes" sort of thing, where they showed that drone cinematography is used, basically, in like 80% of the filming done for that show.
They send the cameramen out in two-person teams, one to fly the drone, and the other to operate the camera, with an Oculus-looking visor on so that they can simply see the camera as through a viewfinder.
The "intent to generate income" is not only there, it's at some point in the past.
Not the guy in the article, though.
And thanks for noting an interesting episode to watch.
They would need to abide by Transport Canada's UAV regulations, and would most likely require a SFOC, which is possible to get if you're operating <400ft commercially. The FAA does not yet have a similar permitting process for commercial drone use.
EDIT: SFOC/Transport Canada regulations: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/standards/general-reca...