Are you liable if someone else uses your media for commercial purposes without your permission?

[Droning on and on...]

Simply an idea that occurred to me, thought I'd throw it out there...

Suppose your a recreational pilot, no 107 cert. You have a YT channel where you post amazing video and pictures, all captured in compliance with local, state, and FAA regulations. People love your channel.

Someone downloads/captures some of your media, and uses it for their own commercial purposes without your permission or knowledge. You find out, contact them, and demand that they cease and desist, remove your media, never use it again, and do not have permission to do so.

They ignore you.

What's the legal standing of that media and its use? Are you somehow legally liable, and in jeopardy of the FAA coming after you? Is the "thief" legally liable for the FAA violation?

While you may have a legitimate civil complaint against the other party, you decide it isn't worth the time and expense to pursue it. Can the FAA force you to?

 

[mavic3usa]

FAA regulates drone flights.
FAA does not regulate drone media and its usage.

 

[Rchawks]

How can that not be considered Theft?

 

[Felix le Chat]

In the UK this would fall under the Copyrights & Patents Act, I'm sure there's a similar legislation in the US.

It's always important to register copyright ownership in the properties of any still or video file before it's posted on any platform. It's the authors first line of defense.

If the media (still or video) has been copied and used by an unauthorized individual: the owness for that infringement lies with the copyright thief.

If the video clip illustrates a flagrant infringement of Aviation Authority regulations: the author of the clip is still responsible for the illegal action.

Arguing against that would be like blaming the whistleblower for the actions of the individual or corporation that broke the law in the first place.

 

[Cafguy]

No

 

[mavic3usa]

If the video clip illustrates a flagrant infringement of Aviation Authority regulations: the author of the clip is still responsible for the illegal action.

I think we agree with this. If there are illegal flight activities in the video clip, whomever flew the drone is responsible in the eye of the FAA who regulate drone flights and flight safety. I believe the OP mentioned everything in the video was on the up and up.

However, the FAA would have nothing to do with the "illegal" use of those videos and photos even if they were copyright; that would be up to someone else to handle and of course, there are various forms of recourse both civil and criminal depending on the circumstances.

A good example would be you fly over your hometown for fun because you don't have a part 107 and you happen to fly over the church in the neighborhood while they are having a wedding. You post the video to social media for friends and family to enjoy. The wedding planner happens to see your drone video online, they snag it off YouTube, and they include in on their website without telling you, Wedding Planners R Us.com, claiming they can produce beautiful drone videos for your special wedding. Sad but that's the world we live in. If the FAA asked Wedding Planners if they have a part 107 license for their drone flights used to create video that supports their commercial business and they respond with "We don't have a drone, we got the footage from...."

As a recreational pilot, are you in trouble? Or is it true that when your flight took off, you only had one thing in mind, your intent was to have fun until the battery ran out. If the recreational pilot reaches out toeWedding Planner and says "take down my footage, you don't have my permission" does the recreational pilot have an obligation to report anything to the FAA should Wedding Planner refuse the demand? My personal answer is No because there's nothing the FAA can legally do because

FAA regulates drone flights.
FAA does not regulate drone media and its usage.

 

[anotherlab]

....While you may have a legitimate civil complaint against the other party, you decide it isn't worth the time and expense to pursue it. Can the FAA force you to?

While it may not be worth your time and money to file a civil action, you can file a DMCA takedown request anywhere your media is being used without permission. That's not difficult to do.

 

[hank970]

I think there have been instances when recreational pilots posted content on YouTube and the FAA gently reminded them that they'd need Part 107 in order to do that. I have no idea whether the FAA regularly monitors YouTube or how it would know that a contributor was a recreational rather than 107 pilot.

Furthermore, I don't care. I'm a recreational pilot and occasionally post images on this site and others. If others co-opt them for commercial purposes, what are the chances that I'd ever know? In any event, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, either because the FAA might contact me or because I may be missing out on some income I might otherwise be entitled to.

 

[mavic3usa]

I think there have been instances when recreational pilots posted content on YouTube and the FAA gently reminded them that they'd need Part 107 in order to do that. I have no idea whether the FAA regularly monitors YouTube or how it would know that a contributor was a recreational rather than 107 pilot.

Furthermore, I don't care. I'm a recreational pilot and occasionally post images on this site and others. If others co-opt them for commercial purposes, what are the chances that I'd ever know? In any event, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, either because the FAA might contact me or because I may be missing out on some income I might otherwise be entitled to.

These are interesting stories. These people are being ratted out by fellow pilots and/or YouTubers.

"I'm with the government, we're here to help!"

[not me, not my videos]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Droning on and on...]

So maybe i wasn't very clear. Assume the following:

• The media was captured legally, within the requirements recreational pilots must follow
• YT is not important; assume the theiving party got ahold of it without permission, from a source that is not in violation of FAA regulations
• Yes, it's an act of theft, but too trivial to care about... I have better things to do with my time

So, a bit of drone media that was captured 100% legally, and used properly by the pilot is obtained without authorization by another party, and used illegally, as part of an advertisement, for example.

Does the FAA have any cause of action here, and against whom?

 

[hank970]

I believe that photos and videos generated by recreational pilots can also be sold by those pilots if their original intent, when creating the content, was recreational. For example, you've launched your drone to capture a video of skiers on a nearby slope for your own personal use and enjoyment. Suddenly, the skiers trigger a huge avalanche which courses down the slope into a valley, where it blocks a busy highway. The skiers are able to avoid burial, and nobody is hurt, but the road blockage stalls traffic for hours. It's a newsworthy event, and local media are hungry for footage of it. You can legally sell that extraordinary footage because your original intent was recreational when you sent your drone aloft.

 

[Meta4]

Does the FAA have any cause of action here, and against whom?

No, and the FAA has a thousand other things to take care of before they'd care about this scenario.

 

[AMann]

As far as the FAA is concerned, you being a novice did not intend to make money when you were flying and took those photos and scenic movies for personal enjoyment. So I wouldn’t think you’d be in trouble for accepting money from the company that infringed on your creative rights and copyright protections.

I found a company using a photo I took and posted online for their logo across many pages on their website. The sad thing is they erased my copyright watermark on the image in order to use it. I looked up the owner and sent them a letter and a bill offering to give them a license to be able to continue using my work and they sent me a check. It was a very polite letter I wrote to them, in fact, the owner thanked me for being so professional about it.

So, it won’t hurt unless you try. Anyone who creates something like a movie, artwork, things like that own a copyright to it in the U.S. You can have the federal government help you with the lawsuit against them if you registered your copyright in the US Copyright office, however, they won’t help you if you don’t, but you still have civil protection against copyright violations. You have to be able to prove what the art is worth on the market. I also sell my photos online with a stock agency and I used that for the basis of showing the value of my work to the company that was using my image without my permission.

 

[Dale D]

Simply an idea that occurred to me, thought I'd throw it out there...

Suppose your a recreational pilot, no 107 cert. You have a YT channel where you post amazing video and pictures, all captured in compliance with local, state, and FAA regulations. People love your channel.

Someone downloads/captures some of your media, and uses it for their own commercial purposes without your permission or knowledge. You find out, contact them, and demand that they cease and desist, remove your media, never use it again, and do not have permission to do so.

They ignore you.

What's the legal standing of that media and its use? Are you somehow legally liable, and in jeopardy of the FAA coming after you? Is the "thief" legally liable for the FAA violation?

While you may have a legitimate civil complaint against the other party, you decide it isn't worth the time and expense to pursue it. Can the FAA force you to?

I think this is an instance when you need to speak to a intellectual property attorney. Do you have any financial damages? I have no legal expertise ( I'm a retired doctor). Here is what I found on AI search
An intellectual property (IP) attorney
protects, manages, and enforces legal rights for creations of the mind, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. They assist clients by registering IP with agencies like the USPTO, drafting licensing agreements, conducting infringement searches, and litigating disputes to secure brand or invention assets.

Dale

 

[Vic Moss]

You are 100% not liable. As a matter of fact, you can sell your footage taken under a 44809 flight. Suppose this same scenario, but instead of stealing your imagery, they ask if they can buy it. You're 100% allowed to sell it.

 

[Nexus Dragoon]

Simply an idea that occurred to me, thought I'd throw it out there...

Suppose your a recreational pilot, no 107 cert. You have a YT channel where you post amazing video and pictures, all captured in compliance with local, state, and FAA regulations. People love your channel.

Someone downloads/captures some of your media, and uses it for their own commercial purposes without your permission or knowledge. You find out, contact them, and demand that they cease and desist, remove your media, never use it again, and do not have permission to do so.

They ignore you.

What's the legal standing of that media and its use? Are you somehow legally liable, and in jeopardy of the FAA coming after you? Is the "thief" legally liable for the FAA violation?

While you may have a legitimate civil complaint against the other party, you decide it isn't worth the time and expense to pursue it. Can the FAA force you to?

1. The Copyright Standing
First, the good news: Copyright and FAA compliance are two separate legal tracks.

Ownership: As the person who pressed "record," you own the copyright to that footage the moment it’s created. The fact that you don’t have a Part 107 certificate doesn’t strip you of your intellectual property rights.

The Infringement: The third party using your media for commercial purposes without permission is committing copyright infringement. Their lack of a license is a civil matter between you and them.

2. FAA Liability: Are you in jeopardy?
This is where pilots get nervous. The FAA’s definition of "commercial" (or "furtherance of a business") usually looks at the intent of the pilot at the time of the flight.

Your Standing: If you flew strictly for recreation, didn't monetize the video (no AdSense, no sponsors), and didn't fly with the intent of selling the footage, you are likely safe.

The "Commercial" Twist: The FAA generally doesn't retroactively punish a recreational pilot just because someone else stole their work and used it for business. You didn't fly for them.

The Risk: The FAA could investigate if they believe the "theft" was a handshake deal to bypass Part 107. However, if you have a documented paper trail of a Cease and Desist (C&D), that is excellent evidence that the commercial use was unauthorized and against your will.

3. Is the "Thief" liable for an FAA violation?
Probably not for the flight itself, but they are in a bind.

The Flight: The FAA regulates the operation of the aircraft. Since the "thief" wasn't the pilot or the operator, they didn't violate Part 107 or Part 44809 (the recreational exception).

The Deception: They are, however, using "illegal" fruit. While the FAA might not fine them for flying, the unauthorized commercial use of drone footage is a massive red flag that can trigger audits or investigations into their own business practices.

4. Can the FAA force you to sue?
No. The FAA is a regulatory body, not a civil court or your personal legal counsel.

They have no authority to compel you to file a civil lawsuit for copyright infringement.

They care about safety and compliance. If they are satisfied that your flight was legal and recreational, they’ll close their folder. Whether you choose to let a thief get away with it is strictly a "you" decision.

 

[hank970]

2. FAA Liability: Are you in jeopardy?
This is where pilots get nervous. The FAA’s definition of "commercial" (or "furtherance of a business") usually looks at the intent of the pilot at the time of the flight.

Your Standing: If you flew strictly for recreation, didn't monetize the video (no AdSense, no sponsors), and didn't fly with the intent of selling the footage, you are likely safe.

The "Commercial" Twist: The FAA generally doesn't retroactively punish a recreational pilot just because someone else stole their work and used it for business. You didn't fly for them.

The Risk: The FAA could investigate if they believe the "theft" was a handshake deal to bypass Part 107. However, if you have a documented paper trail of a Cease and Desist (C&D), that is excellent evidence that the commercial use was unauthorized and against your will.

Oddly enough, the FAA doesn't define recreational in either Part 107 or in Section 44809. Accordingly, as regards operation of a drone, I interpret recreational to mean anything and everything that doesn't have commercial intent or isn't in furtherance of a business and is otherwise legal.

 

[mavic3usa]

Your Standing: If you flew strictly for recreation, didn't monetize the video (no AdSense, no sponsors), and didn't fly with the intent of selling the footage, you are likely safe.

This isn't part of equation; ever. Channel owners have no control over what YouTube does on the platform and it's irrelevant what a subscriber sees on their personal computer in terms of ads or sponsorship material while they are video your videos. Mentioning it here in the context of an FAA investigation simply has no place here; I'm not even sure anyone at the FAA knows what AdSense means. Google is not sending any financial information to the FAA therefore they have no visibility to monetization of video nor do they care.

The Deception: They are, however, using "illegal" fruit. While the FAA might not fine them for flying, the unauthorized commercial use of drone footage is a massive red flag that can trigger audits or investigations into their own business practices.

No such thing. I appreciate your overall focus on addressing the topic and you hit on a few good points but there are no special protections afforded to drone footage or at least I've never seen any indication that raise such red flags. In fact, I have seen drone footage playing at doctors and dentists offices and various other places......in the US we have something called Fair Use that has effectively eroded the copyright landscape to the point where it's not even worth it if the violations aren't egregious.

 

[mavic3usa]

Oddly enough, the FAA doesn't define recreational in either Part 107 or in Section 44809. Accordingly, as regards operation of a drone, I interpret recreational to mean anything and everything that doesn't have commercial intent or isn't in furtherance of a business and is otherwise legal.

I look at it this way:

Part 107 is the default. Every drone flight requires part 107 in order to be legal.

There is an exception: 44809. If you fly under the rules of 44809 then you qualify for the exception and you don't need a part 107, that flight is exempt.

This should clear up the confusion caused by terms like "commercial" and "furtherance of business" etc.

It's simple. You lift off with a drone, you need a part 107.....unless: 44809. Break even a single 44809 rule and....you fall under part 107.

I know it's hard to hear and we all love to break it down with these definitions and scenarios but we got screwed on this one but here we are.

If you first try to determine if a flight is commercial in nature and then from there, you try to determine if you need a part 107 or not then you are likely going to miss the point.

 

[AMann]

I think this is an instance when you need to speak to a intellectual property attorney. Do you have any financial damages? I have no legal expertise ( I'm a retired doctor). Here is what I found on AI search
An intellectual property (IP) attorney
protects, manages, and enforces legal rights for creations of the mind, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. They assist clients by registering IP with agencies like the USPTO, drafting licensing agreements, conducting infringement searches, and litigating disputes to secure brand or invention assets.

Dale

Hi Dale. I described the best and least expensive way to manage copyright infringement in my post above yours. One does not need to hire an attorney, in fact, it definitely isn’t worth the money they would spend to have an attorney work for them, even if it’s for a consultation. In addition to this, taking the person or company to civil court would be a huge waste of money as well, it is highly unlikely an artist will get reimbursed for all the trouble unless they can prove what their work is worth. It really is best too come to an agreement directly with the copyright infringer once a valuation has been determined and agreed upon by both parties. But if this doesn’t work, and the infringement continues, you would still be on your own in civil court unless you register the copyright for the work with the US government copyright office.