It's such a nonsense application of the rule that the people doing the regulation didn't even think about it for at least 8 years (https://youtu.be/fshVNOJ-Wtg?t=296) so it's hard to fault SpaceX.

It's also an extremely good bet that NOAA also recently got an application from ULA. (https://youtu.be/FUJ9Dtyiclw?t=213)

Unless there's a licensing process that makes the agency money or shows up in the numbers they show their bosses (like in this case), no regulatory agency in my experience is ever willing to clarify if something is legal or not. Their only response is to hire legal advice, and they'll take legal action against you if you're wrong. It's stupid that just knowing if the government will let you do something often requires paying money to a private business licensed by that same government for an educated prediction that you could very well still end up being responsible for if it's wrong.

It's impossible to keep track of all the laws and regulations one must follow. More gets printed every week than anyone could glance through, let alone read. The archives are even more impossible.

With an effort, a large organization can be maybe probably mostly in the clear, but no amount of budget and perfectionism can get anyone definitely in the clear who is actually doing something.

SpaceX applied for these licenses in the past, so someone knew about them. Either they lost some institutional knowledge due to attrition or miscommunication, they didn't think the law applied to these particular cameras, or someone thought they could get away with it.

Or it could be that they simply found out and would not like to risk being willfully non-compliant.

No no-one should be following ridiculous rules if they can safely ignore them.

What rules are they not following?