Selling photos taken before I passed my 107 exam

[Meta4]

One person suggested you alter the metadata...then who’d know. Well, you would know.

Alter the metadata? Why?
That's a totally crazy and pointless idea.
There are no secret aerial photo inspecting police, finding aerial photos, identifying the photographers, matching dates on metadata and comparing with photographers licensing.
I doubt the old East German Stasi could have imagined such a thing.

 

[Endeavor]

As long as you don't post any of this information on any blog or open forum prior to getting your 107 you are fine. oops......

 

[crlmjohnson]

I just pass the test a couple of days ago.
Just study and go and pass the test

 

[SRB]

Hello all.I have been a ground based photographer for many years and just took up drone photography. I have many drone shots that I think are worthy of being sold. I know I can’t sell them without my 107 lic so I am studying f the test now and was wondering if, when I pass the dam, I can sell the photos taken before I got certified? I would hate to have beautiful shots that are in limbo and t “stop shooting” until passing as absurd.

I know I can delete my metadata to change the taken date but would not like to do that.

Anyone have some insight?

Thanks

I, personally would not take the advice of anyone on this forum regarding the legality, and this really applies to all legal questions presented here. The only way to find out the legality definitively, is to contact the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel and ask for an interpretation, or have your case tried in court. That said, there are a lot of areas in the FAA regulations that are not clearly defined, and when you step into that area you really don't know. Now if you were operating your drone actively for commercial purposes without your 107, and the FAA had a complaint, it's quite possible they may look into that. On the other hand, if someone is selling old amateur (uncontracted) photos that were taken legally, that would be a subsequent action that has nothing to do with with the original and legal operation of your drone. I personally don't think they would do anything, but if you need to know 100%, get an interpretation.

 

[sar104]

I, personally would not take the advice of anyone on this forum regarding the legality, and this really applies to all legal questions presented here. The only way to find out the legality definitively, is to contact the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel and ask for an interpretation, or have your case tried in court. That said, there are a lot of areas in the FAA regulations that are not clearly defined, and when you step into that area you really don't know. Now if you were operating your drone actively for commercial purposes without your 107, and the FAA had a complaint, it's quite possible they may look into that. On the other hand, if someone is selling old amateur (uncontracted) photos that were taken legally, that would be a subsequent action that has nothing to do with with the original and legal operation of your drone. I personally don't think they would do anything, but if you need to know 100%, get an interpretation.

Sounds like legal advice to me.

 

[Densefog]

My understanding is that selling your own photos is not a 107 activity only if you are hired to take those photos. It is the same with manned aircraft.

 

[sar104]

My understanding is that selling your own photos is not a 107 activity only if you are hired to take those photos. It is the same with manned aircraft.

It's a little stricter than that. For example you cannot fly with the intent of taking photos to sell, even if you were not hired in advance to take them. Anything that is not strictly recreational flight falls under 14 CFR Part 107.

 

[Paul WIngfield]

The FAA regulations care only about the intent of the flight at the time, making this a bit of a grey area. If you were just flying for fun when you took them then technically you could later sell them with or without a Part 107 certification. However - do that too much and the argument becomes less credible.

Once you actually have a Part 107 certification the same rules still apply to those previous flights, but it's really unlikely that anyone is going to pursue you over use of prior work.

I totally agree with your appraisal of the law on this. I saw a letter from the CAA saying as much too. If I can fund it I will post it here.

 

[Thwyllo]

I doubt anyone gives a monkeys frankly. Just do it.

 

[Copter808]

Whether you sell the images or not won't make any difference to aviation safety or the FAA.

You may be correct from a safety standpoint, but NOT from a legal standpoint. If the pictures were taken for commercial purposes or financial gain, then a license is required. Taking the pictures without a license and intending to sell them after be ing licensed would be like a private (or unlicensed) aircraft pilot charging for a flight but getting paid after he gets his license. DONT DO IT!

Unlicensed operations are one of the things likely to put drone operations on the FAA radar (enforcement actions). Let’s keep a low profile folks!

 

[Copter808]

It's always amusing to see the strict fundamentalist interpretations that come up whenever this topic pops up.
Compare that with the FAA's attitude to this most serious of crimes.
Exclusive: Only one drone pilot has ever been busted for flying without a license — and he got a warning

But there HAVE been some pretty heavy fines for other drone operations!

 

[dsmith76]

Good luck selling photos. Unless they are out of this world photos, or you already have a big following, it is very tough to make money. Millions of great photos on the internet trying to find buyers.

 

[macoman]

Good luck selling photos. Unless they are out of this world photos, or you already have a big following, it is very tough to make money. Millions of great photos on the internet trying to find buyers.

My thoughts exactly, you can use Google images and find anything you need for free. But of course if the image is for a business, they may need to buy it for legal protection.

 

[SRB]

Take this for what it is. I am not a lawyer or giving legal advice, but I have had to deal with the FAA for nearly 4 decades. My observation is this: The FAA is concerned when it comes to the legality of the flight, if there were conflicts, or more importantly, were there any hazards or compromise in the safety of a flight. Did any of this occur when you took your photos?

 

[Montana John]

I wonder if the local adage, "Shoot, shovel, and shut up," would fit well here.

 

[ac0j]

I wonder if the local adage, "Shoot, shovel, and shut up," would fit well here.

I would agree.

 

[bsartist]

No, there's nothing official.
But the FAA isn't concerned at all with selling photos.
That's not their business.
They are concerned about flying for commercial purposes.
They are concerned with the flight - not the photos.

If you were flying for your own enjoyment and taking photos for yourself, that isn't commercial flight.
Selling those photos at a later date doesn't retrospectively make a past legal flight, illegal.

But the wrinkle here is that the OP appears to be flying to take pictures that he intends to offer for sale after he is certified. If I have that right, then his flight is commercial based on the intent doctrine.

Edit: to clarify, I guess I’m referring to flights from now on till he passes the exam. It seems to me those could fairly be interpreted as commercial intent since he’s now openly contemplating profiting from those flights. Whereas flights up till now could have just been recreational intent with marketable images as a happy byproduct.