I earned a substantial portion of my income for many years shooting aerials from helicopters for the movie business, so I have (or at least had) a dog in this hunt. Now retired, I look on with interest. On seeing many drone-acquired shots, my reaction is "I just got outta that business in time"
Here's my opinion on this development.
They can be and probably will always be somewhat dangerous. I believe there has already been one death of a drone operator due to a rotor strike to the body. This danger can be mitigated by the use of a protective ring around the rotor system and should be mandatory for all drones. Relatively light and fragile, they pose little risk beyond that generated by their rotors. As their use proliferates we will no doubt see other accidents, some involving injury. Unfortunately, this is how we learn. Increasing regulation will undoubtedly result and that's a good thing for all concerned. Including the lawyers.
Drones constitute no more an invasion of privacy than a long lens or a covertly mounted surveillance camera. It's the application of the tool, not the tool itself that creates the infraction, if there is one. User responsibility trumps all.
Small drones are surprisingly quiet. The commonly seen white drone, the DJI Phantom, is inaudible at more than a few tens of feet over normal urban sound levels. In desert silence, sure, you could hear them, and I'd certainly be annoyed if my time in Eureka Dunes was altered by continuous drone noise. But in a typical natural setting, they're inaudible from reasonable distances . Larger "hexacopter" drones, capable of lifting several kilograms, are noisier, but their endurance is short. Unlike leaf blowers, lawnmowers and barking dogs, their sonic intrusion would be of short duration. They're expensive to own and operate, so they're not going to become a common and continuous noise annoyance like the aforementioned intrusions.
Google "helicopter noise" and you'll get thousands, if not tens of thousands of hits. Conventional helicopter flight operations are regulated in virtually all urban environments for one major reason. Noise. Helicopter noise abatement regulations restrict operations below two thousand feet, greatly affecting photography. Sound designers and sound effects editors looking to generate a "stressful urban environment" sound track will commonly reach for two sound effects: sirens and helicopters. If drones supplant conventional helicopters in any amount, noise will be reduced and images will improve.
Ever notice that in wildlife aerials the animals are always running? Guess why? They're scared $&#less by the noise and an size of the helicopter chasing them. Wildlife tends to see drones as just another bird or bug and aren't frightened at all. Their behaviour unaltered, amazing footage results.
Wind notwithstanding, most drones are surprisingly easy to fly. Multi-axis gyrostabilization and GPS positioning lets them hover "hands off" for minutes at a time. Compared to conventional helicopters, they are ludicrously simple mechanisms, with few moving parts other than the rotors themselves. As are result, the opportunity for catastrophic failure is much reduced and their small mass will cause little collateral damage should they crash. They also carry no inflammable liquid fuels.
Drones enable photographers to acquire many shots similar to those from a manned helicopter, but at a tiny fraction of the cost. Better, and perhaps more importantly, drones enable shots that were previously unattainable by any means. Further, drones are increasingly seeing use by search and rescue crews in conditions that would be impossible or too dangerous for conventional helicopter systems. Rather than costing lives, drones are saving lives.
I favour regulation of UAV flights in public spaces, especially in parks and absolutely in the national parks. While those places offer incredible opportunities for UAV photography, such use by the untrained, unsupervised and inconsiderate general public can only result in damage both to the environment and the experience we all treasure. Regulated, permitted, controlled use by professionals under specific conditions should be allowed. It would benefit everyone, especially those who manage the national parks.
So, again in my opinion, unmanned aerial vehicles are a welcome addition to the toolbox of any photographer, not just Hollywood. Certainly there will be idiots who attempt dangerous shots so that they can post them to YouTube, but this will serve to demonstrate just where these tools can fail or can be dangerous. With careful, informed regulation I expect to see their use proliferate and I look forward to ever more astonishing shots appearing on our screens.