Boss asked me to record a video, do I need a 107 license?

[spsphotos]

It's all about "intent" at the time of the flight.

- Are you flying and taking images for use for something (does not have to be $$$$)? i.e. Looking at your roof, gutters, as a favor for a friend, youtube, facebook, or any other online or public display, etc... - PART 107

- Are you flying just to take pictures for yourself, not to be put online, or shared? - Recreational

- Did you fly recreational as above? And then someone offered to buy your images later? Allowed. As long as the the intent when you took those images was NOT to use them for that purpose.


INTENT IS THE KEY.

 

[sar104]

Thanks for your interpretation. I must have misunderstood the term 'exemption' to mean that 44807 exempts recreational flyers from having to fly under the rules/regs of 107.

So my diagram in post #8 is actually not correct after all? If not, I'll change or delete it.

The interpretation you wrote there is correct - 49 U.S.C. 44809 is an alternative (for recreational flights) to flying under 14 CFR Part 107, not a subset of Part 107. Being exempt from Part 107 means that it does not fall under Part 107.

 

[kshaw]

It's all about "intent" at the time of the flight.

- Are you flying and taking images for use for something (does not have to be $$$$)? i.e. Looking at your roof, gutters, as a favor for a friend, youtube, facebook, or any other online or public display, etc... - PART 107

- Are you flying just to take pictures for yourself, not to be put online, or shared? - Recreational

- Did you fly recreational as above? And then someone offered to buy your images later? Allowed. As long as the the intent when you took those images was NOT to use them for that purpose.


INTENT IS THE KEY.

I agree with your first two bullets. Receipt of funds for your video provides proof of a 107 violation. The intent argument will not be successful.

 

[sar104]

I agree with your first two bullets. Receipt of funds for your video provides proof of a 107 violation. The intent argument will not be successful.

Receiving compensation for videos after the event doesn't, per se, prove that it was a non-recreational flight at the time. But payment, or an agreement, up front, would prove it to be non-recreational.

 

[umanbean]

It's all about "intent" at the time of the flight.

That's the part 'don't get'... couldn't someone just lie about their intent at the time?

"No sir, I was just taking video of that car lot because I was practicing my video techniques and thought that was in interesting place to do so. The dealer approached me later and asked if he could pay me to use it in a TV ad."

 

[umanbean]

The interpretation you wrote there is correct - 49 U.S.C. 44809 is an alternative (for recreational flights) to flying under 14 CFR Part 107, not a subset of Part 107. Being exempt from Part 107 means that it does not fall under Part 107.

Thanks again for participating in this discussion, it means a lot to to me, and I'm sure all of us here.

Actually, I think interpreting the can-o-worms that is the FAA regs is above my IQ level and I should just shut up and read what the experts have to say. ?

 

[Drone_Pilot]

Thanks again for participating in this discussion, it means a lot to to me, and I'm sure all of us here.

Actually, I think interpreting the can-o-worms that is the FAA regs is above my IQ level and I should just shut up and read what the experts have to say. ?

Participate! This is how we all learn ?

 

[Drone_Pilot]

It's all about "intent" at the time of the flight.

- Are you flying and taking images for use for something (does not have to be $$$$)? i.e. Looking at your roof, gutters, as a favor for a friend, youtube, facebook, or any other online or public display, etc... - PART 107

- Are you flying just to take pictures for yourself, not to be put online, or shared? - Recreational

- Did you fly recreational as above? And then someone offered to buy your images later? Allowed. As long as the the intent when you took those images was NOT to use them for that purpose.


INTENT IS THE KEY.

So any recreational pilot can say they took the picture recreationally and 2 Days later sell it for profit. Easy way to get around it ? do you think they're really going to say why they took the picture.

 

[sar104]

So any recreational pilot can say they took the picture recreationally and 2 Days later sell it for profit. Easy way to get around it ? do you think they're really going to say why they took the picture.

Theoretically, yes, and for the odd, one off situation will almost certainly get away with it. But it's not going to work as part of a business model, for obvious reasons, whether roof inspections or regular monetized YouTube channels. You would not be able to advertise your services, get insurance, or have a credible defense if you were reported.

 

[spudster]

- Are you flying and taking images for use for something (does not have to be $$$$)? i.e. Looking at your roof, gutters, as a favor for a friend, youtube, facebook, or any other online or public display, etc... - PART 107

So you are saying that if I fly over my house to look at my own gutters (instead of getting on ladder) I would need a Part 107?

 

[sar104]

So you are saying that if I fly over my house to look at my own gutters (instead of getting on ladder) I would need a Part 107?

Yes - according to the letter of the law. Will it be enforced, or is it even realistically enforceable, in that situation? Of course not.

 

[Drone_Pilot]

So you are saying that if I fly over my house to look at my own gutters (instead of getting on ladder) I would need a Part 107?

Then pull out the old kite tie a GoPro to it and take pictures of your roof. ,?

 

[Drone_Pilot]

Theoretically, yes, and for the odd, one off situation will almost certainly get away with it. But it's not going to work as part of a business model, for obvious reasons, whether roof inspections or regular monetized YouTube channels. You would not be able to advertise your services, get insurance, or have a credible defense if you were reported.

Playing devil's advocate what are the chances of being reported. Have a better chance of getting hit by lightning ?️

 

[sar104]

Playing devil's advocate what are the chances of being reported. Have a better chance of getting hit by lightning ?️

Plenty of pilots have been reported to the FAA. Especially common in the real estate business, apparently.

 

[Drone_Pilot]

Plenty of pilots have been reported to the FAA. Especially common in the real estate business, apparently.

Reported by who Us fellow pilots Maybe, but I don't think the FAA has people watching YouTube and looking for pictures in the internet.

 

[sar104]

Reported by who Us fellow pilots Maybe, but I don't think the FAA has people watching YouTube and looking for pictures in the internet.

The FAA has also sent numerous letters to YouTube users.

 

[spudster]

Yes - according to the letter of the law. Will it be enforced, or is it even realistically enforceable, in that situation? Of course not.

But what if I'm doing it because I enjoy doing it, for me it's "recreational"

 

[sar104]

But what if I'm doing it because I enjoy doing it, for me it's "recreational"

Recreational gutter inspection is not the same as recreational flying.

 

[umanbean]

But what if I'm doing it because I enjoy doing it, for me it's "recreational"

After a 'recreational' gutter inspection that turns out negative, is cleaning out the gutters on a ladder also recreational for you?

 

[Smooth Rhythm]

Thanks for your interpretation. I must have misunderstood the term 'exemption' to mean that 44807 exempts recreational flyers from having to fly under the rules/regs of 107.

So my diagram in post #8 is actually not correct after all? If not, I'll change or delete it.

IMHO, I believe your (umanbean‘s )diagram is directly on point and correctly depicts current FAA and statutory rules. I base this contention primarily on 44809’s Federal Register notice (at Exception for Limited Recreational Operations of Unmanned Aircraft) which states:
“SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
…
Recreational flyers must adhere to all of the statutory conditions to operate under the Exception for Limited Recreational Operation of Unmanned Aircraft. Otherwise, the recreational operations must be conducted under 14 CFR part 107.”

This is also found under AC No: 91-57B (https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57B.pdf):

7.1 Statutory Conditions. Until further notice, paragraphs 7.1.1 through 7.1.8 provide guidance on how a person may meet the eight statutory conditions of the statutory exception of 49 U.S.C. § 44809 to operate a UAS for recreational purposes. A person who fails to meet any of the statutory requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 44809 may not operate UAS under the statutory exception and would need to operate them under part 107 or any other applicable FAA authority.
(emphasis added)
I certainly respect the opinion, knowledge, and experience of the pilots in this forum. However, based on the words of The Federal Register and 44809, I have to conclude that umanbean‘s diagram correctly depicts current FAA rules.
I would add one other thing for consideration. The word “outside” is different from the words “does not apply” since they have different meanings and should not be used interchangeably.
If my analysis of 44809 above is incorrect, I would greatly appreciate someone explaining what I am missing.