107 Loophole

[FlyingHerb]

I was studying the rules regarding getting paid for take photo/videos to be in compliance with the 107 laws.

They gave this example: You ask someone if you have their permission to fly over and take videos of their property. A week later after you have looked over the footage, and realize how great it is....you contact the owner and ask if he wants to buy any of the footage. As long as you did not do it for financial incentive BEFORE the flight (such as talking money), you would be OK.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Starz]

I think I know what’s coming.
I’ll watch to see if I’m correct.

 

[brett8883]

I was studying the rules regarding getting paid for take photo/videos to be in compliance with the 107 laws.

They gave this example: You ask someone if you have their permission to fly over and take videos of their property. A week later after you have looked over the footage, and realize how great it is....you contact the owner and ask if he wants to buy any of the footage. As long as you did not do it for financial incentive BEFORE the flight (such as talking money), you would be OK.

Any thoughts on this?

Yes the FAA is the Federal Aviation Administration, they administrate aviation not commerce or media so they can only tell you that you have to be flying for recreational purposes while in the act of aviating. Once you are done aviating the Federal Aviation Administration no longer longer has jurisdiction over what you do.

The key is that a flight under the limited exception for recreational flight had to be flown purely for the purpose of recreation and that purpose cannot change while in flight. If later you realize you can sell those photos than fine.

However, in your example you cannot fly the flight with the intention of going to the owner later and attempting to sell it.

 

[brett8883]

I was studying the rules regarding getting paid for take photo/videos to be in compliance with the 107 laws.

They gave this example: You ask someone if you have their permission to fly over and take videos of their property. A week later after you have looked over the footage, and realize how great it is....you contact the owner and ask if he wants to buy any of the footage. As long as you did not do it for financial incentive BEFORE the flight (such as talking money), you would be OK.

Any thoughts on this?

Also where did you find this? It would be a good resource to use when this topic inevitably comes up again for the 10,000th time.

 

[BigAl07]

Your INTENT at the time of the flight is all that matters.

 

[adcimagery]

You might be able to sell some photos as a one-off thing, but if you’ve “coincidentally” flown a number of recreational flights that have all resulted in you making some money, the FAA might not take the excuse. Better to just follow the spirit of the rules as well as the letter, given the 107 isn’t an unreasonable bar to meet.

 

[PhantomFandom]

I was studying the rules regarding getting paid for take photo/videos to be in compliance with the 107 laws.

They gave this example: You ask someone if you have their permission to fly over and take videos of their property. A week later after you have looked over the footage, and realize how great it is....you contact the owner and ask if he wants to buy any of the footage. As long as you did not do it for financial incentive BEFORE the flight (such as talking money), you would be OK.

Any thoughts on this?

It is not a loophole unless you plan on using it to get around the Part 107 regulations. BTW, there are many, many, many threads on this topic already so please use the search function.

If you do it once or maybe twice legitimately with no "original intent" of selling those photos then yes you are totally within the regulations. However if you keep doing this over and over, it would be very difficult to prove that you never had intent to sell the photos. That becomes doubly true if your profession happens to be in photography or videography (yes that one came up as well in a thread).

Point of clarification is that payment or any form of exchange for service is not even necessary to make the flight fall under Part 107. If you are flying for anything other than purely recreational, then the flight is considered to fall under Part 107.

 

[theDRONEranger]

The intent of the flight at the time!

Now, if someone were to be thinking of taking all these photos and videos for personal pleasure beforehand, then one week later attempt to sell them, I would say that person is gaming the system! They would no longer have any reputable standing with many other “legit” pilots!

That would be my thought on the question to which the OP is alluding!

 

[Ron (MM)]

I was studying the rules regarding getting paid for take photo/videos to be in compliance with the 107 laws.

They gave this example: You ask someone if you have their permission to fly over and take videos of their property. A week later after you have looked over the footage, and realize how great it is....you contact the owner and ask if he wants to buy any of the footage. As long as you did not do it for financial incentive BEFORE the flight (such as talking money), you would be OK.

Any thoughts on this?

Or just just take the test get license and make greater money from those whom request services from the Commercial sUAS PIC. I am darn sure that large companies be it Private or Government will require proof of license. This sUAS community is evolving fast and soon as the FAA figure out all the safety and airspace particulars . sUAS OWNERS AND PILOTS will have opportunities to earn good money while having fun and conducting bussiness.. Drones are a business and and another tool of Capitalism..
That is all...Carry on ...

 

[JAW]

“Incidental activity” does not meet the requirement of 107 performance as a business. Much the same as a Federal Firearms license as a “collector of curio and relics” does not prevent me from purchasing a WW2 German Mauser for $300 then selling it for $2,000. The “test” is that I do it as a collector and not as a business person. In the case of firearms, the IRS has established parameters on how many guns I can sell as a collector before I become a businessman. To the best of my knowledge this has yet to be applied to recreational drone flying. But the principle of incidental activity remains the same.

 

[brett8883]

But the principle of incidental activity remains the same.

No it doesn’t. Tax law has nothing to do with regulations regarding flying a drone.

 

[JAW]

No it doesn’t. Tax law has nothing to do with regulations regarding flying a drone.

Yes it does. The IRS sets the guidelines of when a hobby becomes a business (from a taxation point of view), just as they have done to differentiate hobby gun collecting activities from gun dealing activities. The principle of incidental activity is what differentiates a hobby from a business and is primarily based on what your intent is/was. In some cases, the IRS sets actual numbers of transactions that once exceeded, makes your hobby a business and therefore subject to taxation.

For example, federal law permits an unlicenseded individual to manufacture a firearm (subject to laws pertaining to what type of firearm it is) so it is completely legal for me to make a shotgun provided it meets certain length requirements. Furthermore, I can make 9 of them and sell them to any individual lawfully permitted to own a shotgun. If I make a 10th shotgun, the IRS considers me to be engaging in the business of manufacturing firearms and therefore subject to taxation as a firearms manufacturer. To say nothing about what the ATF-E considers you.

No 107 ticket is needed if you happen to take a photo of your neighbor’s house and he offers you fifty bucks for it. Run an ad in the local paper offering aerial photography of homes would, on the other hand, require one. Guaranteed, if the IRS says your drone activity makes you a business subject to taxation, the FAA is going to say you need to get your 107 ticket punched.

 

[BigAl07]

@JAW you're wrong bud. The FAA doesn't care what the IRS defines. It's the INTENT at the time of the flight and nothing to do with the IRS. Your INTENT could be to not sell but DONATE/VOLUNTEER and it is still Part 107 because you can't Hobby/Recreate for someone else.

 

[SBurke1969]

I just have to point out as a litigator that while intent at flight matters under the written law, I would never recommend relying on that as an excuse to start selling drone video after the fact. More than once can easily get you prosecuted. I know a lot of prosecutors; state and federal, and I am a judge. Screw with the law enough and it will screw you. Cheeky excuses don’t work in courtrooms. If you want to sell your drone footage, get a license. Stay legal. You don’t want to be a defendant/respondent. It really sucks.

 

[brett8883]

I just have to point out as a litigator that while intent at flight matters under the written law, I would never recommend relying on that as an excuse to start selling drone video after the fact. More than once can easily get you prosecuted. I know a lot of prosecutors; state and federal, and I am a judge. Screw with the law enough and it will screw you. Cheeky excuses don’t work in courtrooms. If you want to sell your drone footage, get a license. Stay legal. You don’t want to be a defendant/respondent. It really sucks.

Hard to argue with that!

 

[maelstrom]

It's the INTENT at the time of the flight and nothing to do with the IRS.

I think it would be very difficult to prove in a court that your intent, at the time of flying, had not been to sell the photos/videos if you were later caught doing so by the authorities. They would have the evidence of the sale whereas you would just have your word (after the fact). Which would you say was the most compelling?

 

[BigAl07]

I think it would be very difficult to prove in a court that your intent, at the time of flying, had not been to sell the photos/videos if you were later caught doing so by the authorities. They would have the evidence of the sale whereas you would just have your word (after the fact). Which would you say was the most compelling?

There are "potentially" 2 aspects to consider...

A) If it was a one-off situation there would be little evidence against you so you would probably have nothing to worry about, easy-peasy. If it happens repeatedly then they would have very little problem showing you're doing Commercial ventures and violating Hobby regs.

B) The MORAL issue comes into play. If you genuinely made the flight with the INTENT to sell the DATA and you state otherwise, you're just a liar.

 

[Ragnar]

I was studying the rules regarding getting paid for take photo/videos to be in compliance with the 107 laws.

They gave this example: You ask someone if you have their permission to fly over and take videos of their property. A week later after you have looked over the footage, and realize how great it is....you contact the owner and ask if he wants to buy any of the footage. As long as you did not do it for financial incentive BEFORE the flight (such as talking money), you would be OK.

Any thoughts on this?

It's only illegal if you get caught. If you are 107 certificated treat all flights like you are getting paid.

 

[maelstrom]

It's only illegal if you get caught.

Sadly it's this kind of thinking which has caused the introduction of so many restrictive rules.

 

[BigAl07]

Sadly it's this kind of thinking which has caused the introduction of so many restrictive rules.

BINGO!! You've hit the nail on the head