Court rules in favor of commercial photography

[Ray Dunakin]

I just saw this in the news:

National Park Service Can’t Require Permits and Fees for Commercial Filming, Judge Rules

In a huge win for filmmakers, a D.C. federal judge has ruled that it's unconstitutional for the National Park Service to require permits or charge fees for commercial filming on its land.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

I hope someone will sue the FAA on similar grounds to overturn their licensing requirements for commercial drone photography.

 

[Meta4]

I hope someone will sue the FAA on similar grounds to overturn their licensing requirements for commercial drone photography.

The FAA has no rules regarding commercial photography.
The rules you are thinking of are all about commercial flying.

 

[BigAl07]

I just saw this in the news:

National Park Service Can’t Require Permits and Fees for Commercial Filming, Judge Rules

In a huge win for filmmakers, a D.C. federal judge has ruled that it's unconstitutional for the National Park Service to require permits or charge fees for commercial filming on its land.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

I hope someone will sue the FAA on similar grounds to overturn their licensing requirements for commercial drone photography.

You are missing the point. The FAA is only concerned with FLIGHT and the INTENT of the flight.

 

[Uncle Hoser]

I just saw this in the news:

National Park Service Can’t Require Permits and Fees for Commercial Filming, Judge Rules

In a huge win for filmmakers, a D.C. federal judge has ruled that it's unconstitutional for the National Park Service to require permits or charge fees for commercial filming on its land.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

I hope someone will sue the FAA on similar grounds to overturn their licensing requirements for commercial drone photography.

Not to be picky, but the Supreme Court was not involved. It was a Fed judge in D.C. making the ruling. Still, it's a winner all around for the 1st Amendment, and a blow to complete governmental control. Go shoot some video!!!

 

[Ray Dunakin]

You are missing the point. The FAA is only concerned with FLIGHT and the INTENT of the flight.

That's the point. There is no reason why a person using a drone for photography should be treated differently depending on whether or not they are making money off their photography. As it is now, I can shoot all the photos and video I want with my drone but the FAA regulations effectively prohibit me from selling any of my work.

 

[Ray Dunakin]

Not to be picky, but the Supreme Court was not involved. It was a Fed judge in D.C. making the ruling. Still, it's a winner all around for the 1st Amendment, and a blow to complete governmental control. Go shoot some video!!!

Yeah, my mistake there. Sorry.

 

[Meta4]

That's the point. There is no reason why a person using a drone for photography should be treated differently depending on whether or not they are making money off their photography. As it is now, I can shoot all the photos and video I want with my drone but the FAA regulations effectively prohibit me from selling any of my work.

The FAA regulations prevent you flying for a client.
They don't say anything about photography or selling photos.
This comes from the FAA trying to treat drones as if they are ordinary aircraft.

Another approach has been taken in some more enlightened countries where commercial use of drones under 2 kilograms doesn't require any special licensing.

 

[Ray Dunakin]

The FAA regulations prevent you flying for a client.
They don't say anything about photography or selling photos.
This comes from the FAA trying to treat drones as if they are ordinary aircraft.

Another approach has been taken in some more enlightened countries where commercial use of drones under 2 kilograms doesn't require any special licensing.

The FAA regs say you need a license to fly a drone for commercial uses. Selling photos and video is a commercial use.

 

[Chip]

The FAA regs say you need a license to fly a drone for commercial uses. Selling photos and video is a commercial use.

I see what you mean and this is great article and case to read for anyone interested in outdoor photography. I had no idea this was issue.

it's a winner all around for the 1st Amendment, and a blow to complete governmental control. Go shoot some video!!!

?

You are missing the point. The FAA is only concerned with FLIGHT and the INTENT of the flight.

That does seem like big distinction. Standing on ground and taking photos versus via flying machine.

The FAA regulations prevent you flying for a client.
They don't say anything about photography or selling photos.
This comes from the FAA trying to treat drones as if they are ordinary aircraft.

Another approach has been taken in some more enlightened countries where commercial use of drones under 2 kilograms doesn't require any special licensing.

I like how you put this.

 

[sar104]

The FAA regs say you need a license to fly a drone for commercial uses. Selling photos and video is a commercial use.

No, you have misunderstood the applicable law and your statement is almost completely incorrect. An act of Congress (Public Law 112-95, Title III, Subtitle B) says that you need a license to operate a sUAS non-recreationally. The FAA regulations merely codify that law.

Neither the law nor the regulations mention commercial use and, as pointed out above, it's not the sale of your photos or videos that is regulated - what's regulated is the non-recreational nature of the flight when you acquired those materials. As a result, you can, in fact, sell such material without a Part 107 certification if the original intent of the flight was recreational. What you cannot do (with a few exceptions) is fly in the first place if the purpose of the flight is not purely recreational. Commercial intent would just be a subset of non-recreational uses.

 

[Ray Dunakin]

No, you have misunderstood the applicable law and your statement is almost completely incorrect. An act of Congress (Public Law 112-95, Title III, Subtitle B) says that you need a license to operate a sUAS non-recreationally. The FAA regulations merely codify that law.

Neither the law nor the regulations mention commercial use and, as pointed out above, it's not the sale of your photos or videos that is regulated - what's regulated is the non-recreational nature of the flight when you acquired those materials. As a result, you can, in fact, sell such material without a Part 107 certification if the original intent of the flight was recreational. What you cannot do (with a few exceptions) is fly in the first place if the purpose of the flight is not purely recreational. Commercial intent would just be a subset of non-recreational uses.

That's what I said: If I want to make any money from my photos or videos, I have to jump through all their licensing hoops. Which is discriminatory, because they don't put those same requirements on anyone doing the exact same thing for free.

 

[Rich QR]

I just saw this in the news:

National Park Service Can’t Require Permits and Fees for Commercial Filming, Judge Rules

In a huge win for filmmakers, a D.C. federal judge has ruled that it's unconstitutional for the National Park Service to require permits or charge fees for commercial filming on its land.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

I hope someone will sue the FAA on similar grounds to overturn their licensing requirements for commercial drone photography.

I read the ruling, and it said that the Park Service had to treat commercial filming on the same basis as non-commercial filming. Previously, the NPS had a policy that all commercial filming required a permit, but that non-commercial filming didn't.

The judge even wrote that permit requirements or filming bans could be acceptable if they were targeted based on resourse impacts instead of on the commercial vs. non-commercial nature of the project.

The Park Service bans flying drones because of resource impacts, regardless of whether they have a camera on board, or whether they're used commercially or non-commercially.

I'm not expecting that to change.

 

[Ray Dunakin]

I read the ruling, and it said that the Park Service had to treat commercial filming on the same basis as non-commercial filming. Previously, the NPS had a policy that all commercial filming required a permit, but that non-commercial filming didn't.

The judge even wrote that permit requirements or filming bans could be acceptable if they were targeted based on resourse impacts instead of on the commercial vs. non-commercial nature of the project.

The Park Service bans flying drones because of resource impacts, regardless of whether they have a camera on board, or whether they're used commercially or non-commercially.

I'm not expecting that to change.

I'm not talking about changing the Park Service. I'm talking about removing the FAA's arbitrary restrictions on "commercial" uses of drones.

 

[Rich QR]

I'm not talking about changing the Park Service. I'm talking about removing the FAA's arbitrary restrictions on "commercial" uses of drones.

The FAA wasn't a party to the lawsuit, so it is unlikely to be binding on them.

The FAA doesn't prohibit filming at all anywhere (they regulate flying, not filming), so the first amendment freedom of the press argument is unlikely to work against them.

Commercial flight isn't a protected right under the Constitution, as far as I can tell.

Maybe the SCOTUS will see it differently. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

No, you have misunderstood the applicable law and your statement is almost completely incorrect. An act of Congress (Public Law 112-95, Title III, Subtitle B) says that you need a license to operate a sUAS non-recreationally. The FAA regulations merely codify that law.

Neither the law nor the regulations mention commercial use and, as pointed out above, it's not the sale of your photos or videos that is regulated - what's regulated is the non-recreational nature of the flight when you acquired those materials. As a result, you can, in fact, sell such material without a Part 107 certification if the original intent of the flight was recreational. What you cannot do (with a few exceptions) is fly in the first place if the purpose of the flight is not purely recreational. Commercial intent would just be a subset of non-recreational uses.

Nice to see you back @sar104 . I was beginning to worry that something happened to you.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

That's what I said: If I want to make any money from my photos or videos, I have to jump through all their licensing hoops. Which is discriminatory, because they don't put those same requirements on anyone doing the exact same thing for free.

FAA regulates the airspace not whether or not you're shooting video or photographing. Any flight that is outside of 44809 (recreational flight) automatically falls under part 107. The minute you fly outside of ANY rule of 44809, is ceases to be a recreational flight and automatically defaults to Part 107 rules.

 

[Vic Moss]

That's what I said: If I want to make any money from my photos or videos, I have to jump through all their licensing hoops. Which is discriminatory, because they don't put those same requirements on anyone doing the exact same thing for free.

Actually, you have it completely backwards.

107 flight rules are the default. If you want to fly recreationally, you have 8 hoops to jump through. It's called the "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft". Six of those hoops are currently active. The last two (CBO requirement and Recreational Knowledge Test) will be released by Q2.

There is no grounds to sue the FAA to overturn the law. And it is a law. Both 14CFR 107 and 49 USC 44809 are codified. Wishing for someone to sue the FAA is wasted energy.

 

[MavicAir2Marc]

Actually, you have it completely backwards.

107 flight rules are the default. If you want to fly recreationally, you have 8 hoops to jump through. It's called the "Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft". Six of those hoops are currently active. The last two (CBO requirement and Recreational Knowledge Test) will be released by Q2.

There is no grounds to sue the FAA to overturn the law. And it is a law. Both 14CFR 107 and 49 USC 44809 are codified. Wishing for someone to sue the FAA is wasted energy.

Way more eloquently said than I put it...

 

[sar104]

That's what I said: If I want to make any money from my photos or videos, I have to jump through all their licensing hoops. Which is discriminatory, because they don't put those same requirements on anyone doing the exact same thing for free.

No, it's not what you said, or what you are still saying, and that's been clearly explained in several posts above. Not being able to sell material unless you are Part 107 certified (except material originally acquired during recreational flight) is simply a consequence of existing law (codified by the FAA - not created by the FAA) that requires certification for all non-recreational flying, in that the intent to take photos and videos for commercial purposes unambiguously takes the flight out of the recreational exception to Part 107. The law itself addresses only the purpose of the flight, and only purely recreational flight is exempt from the requirements.

And to clarify further, the Park Service issue is unrelated since NPS doesn't control the airspace - only what you do on the land that it controls. The ruling simply says that NPS cannot charge a fee for commercial filming - since it doesn't charge for non-commercial filming. It is slightly confusing because in most places NPS bans all sUAS operations without a permit, and generally only issues permits for commercial work, but presumably there have been at least some cases where NPS issued free permits for non-commercial activities.

 

[sar104]

Nice to see you back @sar104 . I was beginning to worry that something happened to you.

Thanks. I didn't go anywhere - just a change in priorities.