I hear a rumor that, as I understand it, if you fly as a hobbyist and take a photo which you later provide to someone for commercial use, that you are in violation. That is, you need a UAS license and operate as a commercial enterprise to do this.
That makes sense to me.You are only in violation if you took that photo knowing that you were going to sell it (or give it away) for a commercial use at a later time.
You are only in violation if you took that photo knowing that you were going to sell it (or give it away) for a commercial use at a later time.
Burden of proof is on the accuser. Better question, how would they prove you intended commercial use at the time of flight?
If you’re doing this all the time, I can see them giving you the side eye with that defense, but if it’s a one off you’re likely fine. I’m not a lawyer, of course.
I think in that scenario I presented above that the burden of proof for a FAA to issue a citation (legitimate or not) would have been met already had the RP posted a photo for sale or by having already sold a photo, thus it would be on the RP’s lap to defend themself as they stood in front of a federal magistrate.
I think in that scenario I presented above that the burden of proof for a FAA to issue a citation (legitimate or not) would have been met already had the RP posted a photo for sale or by having already sold a photo, thus it would be on the RP’s lap to defend themself as they stood in front of a federal magistrate.
Try catching the Real Estate agents that knowingly post pictures without part 107
Hit the industry with a few fines and those who fly part 107 as a business will benefit big time.
I’ve been trying to get the local MLS systems to required registration of Realtors who are apart 107 certified- but in fact they could care less
If I’m repeatedly “flying for hobby purposes” and selling photos, the FAA would have a reasonable case that I’m not really flying for hobby purposes. In that case, yes... you would likely have to explain why you’re continually making commercial use of your photos obtained on “hobby” flights. It looks pretty fishy.
Same if the photo wasn’t really the kind of photo you’d capture for hobby purposes (for example, a real estate photo... few people would believe you’d just happen to take a hobby photo of a house going on the market at the exact right time). Looks fishy.
If you truly did capture the photo during a hobby flight and then sell it afterwards, that’s completely within the rules. If it’s not a common occurrence for you, I can’t imagine that explanation wouldn’t fly.
Further... the FAA doesn’t issue citations, they issue enforcement actions which are a civil matter. These enforcement actions are appealed to an NTSB or DoT administrative law judge... not a federal magistrate (there is no such position... there are “federal magistrate judges but they’d never hear an FAA appeal, they’re basically understudy judges for federal district court). You don’t enter the court system on an FAA EA appeal until the Court of Appeals level.
This also comes into play even if you have an SUAS Remote Pilot certificate and you’re flying in a hobby capacity (outside of 107 rules in some way).
In short, what msinger up there posted is correct. It’s fine to sell a photo you captured during a hobby flight, but I wouldn’t make a habit of it.
Can you give me a heads up on the MLS you mentioned. Perhaps I could use their template to convince our systems.
I’ve gone to NAR as well and the attitude is not welcoming.
Too much bother I presume - that is until someone is injured ( certainly hope not) then suddenly they will take notice.
I believe if an injury were to take place the MLS could be held accountable.
Thanks for your quick reply and congrats to an MLS that believes ethics and rules matter.
There’s no ‘repeated’ or ‘continually’ in the law if A photo you take with your recreational drone falls into a commercial end use, then you’re clearly in violation- 100%. No ifs, ands, or buts about it! Be very careful who you give one of you photos or videos to! They may be dumber than all-get-out or they just may plainly understand that they have no responsibility in such a matter and are very willing to gamble with your actual responsibilities...hence why most people on this thread seem to think the law is very rubbery...rather than precise.If I’m repeatedly “flying for hobby purposes” and selling photos, the FAA would have a reasonable case that I’m not really flying for hobby purposes. In that case, yes... you would likely have to explain why you’re continually making commercial use of your photos obtained on “hobby” flights. It looks pretty fishy.
Same if the photo wasn’t really the kind of photo you’d capture for hobby purposes (for example, a real estate photo... few people would believe you’d just happen to take a hobby photo of a house going on the market at the exact right time). Looks fishy.
If you truly did capture the photo during a hobby flight and then sell it afterwards, that’s completely within the rules. If it’s not a common occurrence for you, I can’t imagine that explanation wouldn’t fly.
Further... the FAA doesn’t issue citations, they issue enforcement actions which are a civil matter. These enforcement actions are appealed to an NTSB or DoT administrative law judge... not a federal magistrate (there is no such position... there are “federal magistrate judges but they’d never hear an FAA appeal, they’re basically understudy judges for federal district court). You don’t enter the court system on an FAA EA appeal until the Court of Appeals level.
This also comes into play even if you have an SUAS Remote Pilot certificate and you’re flying in a hobby capacity (outside of 107 rules in some way).
In short, what msinger up there posted is correct. It’s fine to sell a photo you captured during a hobby flight, but I wouldn’t make a habit of it.
The FAA has no rules or regulations about photos, they only have rules and regulations about flight.There’s no ‘repeated’ or ‘continually’ in the law if A photo you take with your recreational drone falls into a commercial end use, then you’re clearly in violation- 100%. No ifs, ands, or buts about it! Be very careful who you give one of you photos or videos to! They may be dumber than all-get-out or they just may plainly understand that they have no responsibility in such a matter and are very willing to gamble with your actual responsibilities...hence why most people on this thread seem to think the law is very rubbery...rather than precise.
negative, james. if you could just use the word "intent" in some of your explanations, you'd see just how wrong you are.There’s no ‘repeated’ or ‘continually’ in the law if A photo you take with your recreational drone falls into a commercial end use, then you’re clearly in violation- 100%. No ifs, ands, or buts about it! Be very careful who you give one of you photos or videos to! They may be dumber than all-get-out or they just may plainly understand that they have no responsibility in such a matter and are very willing to gamble with your actual responsibilities...hence why most people on this thread seem to think the law is very rubbery...rather than precise.