commercial license

[rdeagazio]

If I put videos on a Youtube channel (which is monetized) do I need a "commercial license" ?

i just read that someone shot a video in the Grand Canyon and posted it as part of the YOuTube VLOG. The NPS (National Park Service) fined them and threatened them with jail and the FAA required them to get a Commerical License even though it was a Mavic Mini

Comments?

 

[Phantomrain.org]

If I put videos on a Youtube channel (which is monetized) do I need a "commercial license" ?

i just read that someone shot a video in the Grand Canyon and posted it as part of the YOuTube VLOG. The NPS (National Park Service) fined them and threatened them with jail and the FAA required them to get a Commerical License even though it was a Mavic Mini

Comments?

This post may provide some insight.
The reality is if you call the FAA and you tell them you would like to share your video on youtube they are very likely to suggest to get your 107 , but they are not going to fine you. The Parks on the other hand will ask you to take it down .

FAA

Forgive my ignorance here, But I had no idea there were rules to flying drones. I was going to buy the Mavic mini for my first drone and now I’m on the fence since I just came across some of the FAA rules. I had no idea. Lol. They don’t seem bad from the few the I read. But I feel like I can’t...

mavicpilots.com

 

[Deleted member 114292]

If I put videos on a Youtube channel (which is monetized) do I need a "commercial license" ?

i just read that someone shot a video in the Grand Canyon and posted it as part of the YOuTube VLOG. The NPS (National Park Service) fined them and threatened them with jail and the FAA required them to get a Commerical License even though it was a Mavic Mini

Comments?

The requirement for a certificate has nothing to do with the type of drone it is.

Clearly your intent would be commercial knowing it’s a monetized account so you would be in violation.

Will Ithe FAA ever say anything? Unlikely but you never know.

You should do a deep dive here with. Searching here will give you a better insight

 

[Vic Moss]

No. The FAA doesn't care if you put your videos on YouTube. Even if the channel is monetized.

It's 100% about intent of flight. If you flew to put on your channel for the monetization, then yes. If you flew it for recreation and then put it on there with no intent of monetization, then no.

The NPS fined him for flying from the within park boundaries, not simply for flying.

The FAA's approach is to educate first, force educate second. If that fails, then they go after them financially and/or their certificates. And as far as the drone being a Mini, if it's used commercially, it has to be registered.

The only aspect of FAA regulations that the Mini is exempt from is registration if it's flown strictly under hobby rules. All other aspects of FAA regulations apply for the Mavic Mini in the U.S.

So to sum up, if you fly the flight for recreation, you're fine. If you fly it to increase viewership and take advantage of monetization on your YT channel, you need your 107.

 

[JimWest]

If I put videos on a Youtube channel (which is monetized) do I need a "commercial license" ?

i just read that someone shot a video in the Grand Canyon and posted it as part of the YOuTube VLOG. The NPS (National Park Service) fined them and threatened them with jail and the FAA required them to get a Commerical License even though it was a Mavic Mini

Comments?

Flying a drone is prohibited in all U.S. national parks. In addition, the FAA has special rules above the Grand Canyon, restricting most overflights by all aircraft.

 

[rdeagazio]

My question is not about NPS. That is a given. I understand that regulation. But VBLOGgers use drone video. Their YouTube Channel is monetized...i.e. they get paid by the views they receive especially if they have over 4,000 subscribers. My question is Does that constitute "commercial use?"

 

[Vic Moss]

Flying a drone is prohibited in all U.S. national parks. In addition, the FAA has special rules above the Grand Canyon, restricting most overflights by all aircraft.

Actually flying drone from NPS property isn't prohibited. You are allowed to do it if you have permission from Park Superintendents. However it's rare they give it. So in all tense and purposes, it's not allowed while flying from NPS property. You can however fly over them if you can still follow FAA regulations.

My question is not about NPS. That is a given. I understand that regulation. But VBLOGgers use drone video. Their YouTube Channel is monetized...i.e. they get paid by the views they receive especially if they have over 4,000 subscribers. My question is Does that constitute "commercial use?"

If you fly for the intent on making money with the YT channel, yes. That is commercial use.

 

[Texbow]

Actually flying drone from NPS property isn't prohibited. You are allowed to do it if you have permission from Park Superintendents. However it's rare they give it. So in all tense and purposes, it's not allowed while flying from NPS property. You can however fly over them if you can still follow FAA regulations.


If you fly for the intent on making money with the YT channel, yes. That is commercial use.

And if you post drone footage in the hopes someone will by you lunch you need a 107. I predict this issue of commercial or not on YouTube or other social media will fade from the FAA concern or at least never be enforced. Too many more important drone issues to solve IMHO.

 

[JohnLietzke]

Watch this video about The FAA, YouTube and violations of regulation.

 

[Vic Moss]

Watch this video about The FAA, YouTube and violations of regulation.

This is a perfect example of not only when you need a 107 (he was flying for views on his YT, not for recreation), and the approach FSDO takes.

However, two things he said are wrong.

First, now that he is flying a Mini for 107, he needs to register it. Any drone used for non-recreational work needs a unique registration number. And soon all 250g+ drones likely will. That is part of the RID NPRM.

Second, I promise you that no FAA employee is hanging out at their home watching Youtube looking for violations. If she was, she wasn't doing her job. I know this for a fact after hearing that very thing from more than one of my FSA contacts.

More likely she was either doing it counter to what she was supposed to be doing, following up on a report of a violation, or very eager to do her job.

But if you're posting your recreational videos on YouTube, even if your channel is monetized, that doesn't mean you automatically need a 107. Likely, and you're better off getting one.

This particular video gets a lot of playtime in many of the drone groups. And I'm glad it does.

 

[Jekjr]

If I put videos on a Youtube channel (which is monetized) do I need a "commercial license" ?

i just read that someone shot a video in the Grand Canyon and posted it as part of the YOuTube VLOG. The NPS (National Park Service) fined them and threatened them with jail and the FAA required them to get a Commerical License even though it was a Mavic Mini

Comments?

National Parks are off limits to drones period from everything I can read.

 

[Vic Moss]

National Parks are off limits to drones period from everything I can read.

No. If you get permission from the Park Superintendent, or can legally fly from outside their property, you can fly there.

 

[Jekjr]

No. If you get permission from the Park Superintendent, or can legally fly from outside their property, you can fly there.

Nice.

 

[Vic Moss]

Nice.

Otherwise I would not have been able to get this photo. 100% legal and with full knowledge of the Cedar Breaks Rangers.

 

[JimWest]

No. If you get permission from the Park Superintendent, or can legally fly from outside their property, you can fly there.

That may be true for most National Parks, but there are special air traffic rules for the Grand Canyon, covering airspace below 18,000' MSL.

 

[Flightpro]

If I put videos on a Youtube channel (which is monetized) do I need a "commercial license" ?

i just read that someone shot a video in the Grand Canyon and posted it as part of the YOuTube VLOG. The NPS (National Park Service) fined them and threatened them with jail and the FAA required them to get a Commerical License even though it was a Mavic Mini

Comments?

Yes. It’s highly recommended for several reasons. If your video goes viral, you may be compensated and at that point, you will have to be licensed to cover the requirements of the FAA. Second, if you unknowingly break a rule, the FAA has your own self incriminating evidence on file online and within their reach at any point after you may decide to take the video down. If you’re licensed, you may know how to defend any questions or questionable actions in better defense if an inquiry is made by the FAA.

 

[Vic Moss]

That may be true for most National Parks, but there are special air traffic rules for the Grand Canyon, covering airspace below 18,000' MSL.

Yes, The Grand Canyon does have it's own set of rules thanks to tourist aricraft crashing into each others.

 

[Jekjr]

Greg put out this latest video on the subject of Part 107 and other aspects of many of the things I have seen talked about all over the internet on Part 107. Here is the link to the video.

 

[Meta4]

Greg put out this latest video on the subject of Part 107 and other aspects of many of the things I have seen talked about all over the internet on Part 107.

And he's wrong.
Information from Youtube presenters is just as likely to be incorrect as opinions of forum members and some individual FAA personnel.
At 9:47 he says: If you say I'm going to fly out there to put my footage on Youtube so that everybody can see it, then all of a sudden you are no longer flying for fun.
Now your intent is to put the footage on social media, it's no longer recreational flying.
... now you need to have a Part 107 certificate.
His opinion about this is incorrect.

Here's the official position of the FAA (not misguided opinions that some FAA staff occasionaly give)

FAA: Home

fsims.faa.gov

Note the part I highlighted in red.

B. Aviation-Related Videos or Other Electronic Media on the Internet. UAS videos, in particular, are increasingly appearing on the internet. UAS videos may depict aircraft being flown in a variety of classes of airspace and at varying altitudes. Inspectors are to follow the protocol below when receiving notification of videos with potentially noncompliant UAS operations posted to the Internet.​

C. Evidence. In all cases, the FAA must have acceptable evidence in support of all alleged facts in order to take legal enforcement action. Inspectors are reminded that:​

1) Electronic media posted on the Internet is only one form of evidence which may be used to support an enforcement action and it must be authenticated.​

2) Electronic media posted on the Internet is ordinarily not sufficient evidence alone to determine that an operation is not in compliance with 14 CFR. However, electronic media may serve as evidence of possible violations and may be retained for future enforcement action.​

3) Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the Internet must be removed.​

NOTE: Electronic media posted on a video website does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.

 

[Jekjr]

And he's wrong.
Information from Youtube presenters is just as likely to be incorrect as opinions of forum members and some individual FAA personnel.
At 9:47 he says: If you say I'm going to fly out there to put my footage on Youtube so that everybody can see it, then all of a sudden you are no longer flying for fun.
Now your intent is to put the footage on social media, it's no longer recreational flying.
... now you need to have a Part 107 certificate.
His opinion about this is incorrect.

Here's the official position of the FAA (not misguided opinions that some FAA staff occasionaly give)

FAA: Home

fsims.faa.gov

Note the part I highlighted in red.

B. Aviation-Related Videos or Other Electronic Media on the Internet. UAS videos, in particular, are increasingly appearing on the internet. UAS videos may depict aircraft being flown in a variety of classes of airspace and at varying altitudes. Inspectors are to follow the protocol below when receiving notification of videos with potentially noncompliant UAS operations posted to the Internet.​

C. Evidence. In all cases, the FAA must have acceptable evidence in support of all alleged facts in order to take legal enforcement action. Inspectors are reminded that:​

1) Electronic media posted on the Internet is only one form of evidence which may be used to support an enforcement action and it must be authenticated.​

2) Electronic media posted on the Internet is ordinarily not sufficient evidence alone to determine that an operation is not in compliance with 14 CFR. However, electronic media may serve as evidence of possible violations and may be retained for future enforcement action.​

3) Inspectors have no authority to direct or suggest that electronic media posted on the Internet must be removed.​

NOTE: Electronic media posted on a video website does not automatically constitute a commercial operation or commercial purpose, or other non-hobby or non-recreational use.

Did you watch the video?