Do I need a licience to Mavic film a wedding for money?

[Mavic22704]

In general, if you get something in exchange for your use of the drone, it would be considered use under Part 107. You are right, it goes on forever, and I don't claim to be 100% sure. Even FAA reps say it comes down to individual court cases.

Thanks, I just always wonder what is the big deal with taking a photo from the air for a profit? What if I stand on top of a tall building and take the same shot, I guess that would be legal. Confusing to me. Maybe I can put my camera on a tall pole lol.

 

[mw174620]

Thanks, I just always wonder what is the big deal with taking a photo from the air for a profit? What if I stand on top of a tall building and take the same shot, I guess that would be legal. Confusing to me. Maybe I can put my camera on a tall pole lol.

The way I look at it, this is just my opinion, is that if money can be made, people will flock to that industry. As we see with drones, that is happening. As more drones are in the air, the more people who are not aware of possible safety hazards or are just ignorant to the possible risks are flying around the sky. I understand the argument of "a drone 50 feet in the air is harming nothing" but the government is regulating what they feel is necessary to limit accidents, etc. As more pilots fly their drones up to absurd heights, just cause they can, the more regulations will be released. Probably starting with the 336 exemption and the part of the law that says they can't legislate against hobby aircraft.

 

[Snoweman]

Just go ahead and get your 107.

It's not that hard, and once done, you are set for a promising career in a growing industry... or, you can simply make a few bucks on the side without looking over your shoulder.

Just do it. Then you'll be one who can legally get the jobs.

Funny thing is that you will no longer be allowed to fly at night. Quirky thing in the rules. Licensed pilots can only fly 1/2 hour before dawn and after dusk by filing a NOTAM. No such rule exists for the hobbyist.

 

[Robert Mitchell]

Funny thing is that you will no longer be allowed to fly at night. Quirky thing in the rules. Licensed pilots can only fly 1/2 hour before dawn and after dusk by filing a NOTAM. No such rule exists for the hobbyist.

Not correct, licensed pilots can fly recreationally any time they want, but when flying commercially, they would need a waiver.

 

[Vansvalley]

You cannot fly over people with or without a license

 

[ZeroG]

Am I breaking any laws by offering to SAFELY[observing all FAA Regs.and of course, a heaping amount of common sense] to film parts of a wedding ceremony for a fee??
Hypothetically that is??

In Canada yes, it's illegal, unless you qualify for and get and SFOC (special flight operators certificate). Events such as weddings are very tricky and difficult, in terms of staying compliant with Transport Canada's SFOC acceptance criteria. Also, there are so many moving parts to a wedding, that I would avoid it altogether. I am a professional UAS operator, and it's just my comfort level.

 

[Skyler King III]

In the US, yes.

If it's 100 % indoors, no.

 

[Mavic22704]

The way I look at it, this is just my opinion, is that if money can be made, people will flock to that industry. As we see with drones, that is happening. As more drones are in the air, the more people who are not aware of possible safety hazards or are just ignorant to the possible risks are flying around the sky. I understand the argument of "a drone 50 feet in the air is harming nothing" but the government is regulating what they feel is necessary to limit accidents, etc. As more pilots fly their drones up to absurd heights, just cause they can, the more regulations will be released. Probably starting with the 336 exemption and the part of the law that says they can't legislate against hobby aircraft.

I agree with you. I can see how it will be hard to regulate this hobby with all the thousands of dji quads and hexacopters that use the naza and don't even have a altimeter or at least mine didn't. I find line of sight impossible here in east texas with all the tall pine trees. I have seen a few drones but I really could not tell where the pilot might be as it flew over the trees and some now with 4 mile range. I think most responsible flyers want rules to go by so we feel legal. I felt better when I got the faa registration card and some rules I could follow.

 

[wsalopek]

As everyone else has said you do need your remote pilot certification but, you need to check your local and state laws as well. Here in North Carolina you also must have a license from The State Department of Transportation, Aviation Division. To get that license you must pass a knowledge test (regarding state drone laws) and you must show proof of your 107 certification. Other states may have the same requirements but I am only familiar with what is required in North Carolina.

2nc...

Hmmm...this actually doesn't sound legal (what the State is doing)...I didn't think a state/city/locality could put additional restrictions on flying/piloting other than what the FAA requires. The airspace is the FAA's jurisdiction...no one else's.

Have to research it.

--

Bill

P.S. OK...just did some research..

Sounds like North Carolina is overstepping their bounds:

Mandating equipment or training for UAS related to aviation safety such as geo-fencing would likely be preempted. Courts have found that state regulation pertaining to mandatory training and equipment requirements related to aviation safety is not consistent with the federal regulatory framework.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/UAS_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf

 

[wsalopek]

No, you are absolutely not breaking ANY laws by filming a wedding with your drone for money, as long as you only do it hypothetically.

"Hypothetically"

??

Anyway, yes, he IS breaking the law...absolutely, positively.

 

[Plawa]

"Hypothetically"

??

Anyway, yes, he IS breaking the law...absolutely, positively.

You <~~~~~~The vast sea of sarcasm~~~~~~~>The Joke

 

[Robert Mitchell]

2nc...

Hmmm...this actually doesn't sound legal (what the State is doing)...

Sounds like North Carolina is overstepping their bounds:

Mandating equipment or training for UAS related to aviation safety such as geo-fencing wf

But does this surprise anyone?

Governments at all levels are regularly overstepping their bounds, especially with regard to drones. Since that is what I am familiar with, I'll stick to that. From the FAA enforcing laws which didn't exist, to making rules they were forbidden to, to the local town claiming that one can't fly over private property without permission...

Or has no one been paying attention?

 

[wsalopek]

My understanding is that pictures and/or video taken during a purely recreational flight can be later sold or monetized without issues.

WD...

No they can't. The moment you sell the pictures or video, you commit a crime. If not, why would anyone need a license?

And there is no grey area here. We are talking about rules/laws (for commercial pilots/aircraft) that have been in place for many decades, and which now apply to drones.

-

Bill

 

[wsalopek]

Incorrect. If at any point you sell the footage, or give it to someone who sells it, or your footage is given away but later used in a video that at some point makes any money for somebody, such as - your clips are used in an independent film for which the theater is charging admission - the FAA deems the original flight to be commercial and subject to Part 107.

Qoncussion,

I can't see how that's true...or else no one would be able to take a single picture or video without risking future fines or jail time. That doesn't make sense.

The only thing that matters is if the drone pilot himself was paid.

A person could even directly tell a drone pilot "I am going to use your pictures to make money"... But as long as the drone pilot is not compensated for those pictures, the flight is 100% legal, and does not have to be flown under part 107.

It's all about the drone pilot him/herself being compensated. It's all about trying to limit the risk (to people or property) a non-commercially-trained pilot will take when compensation is involved (by training him to a higher (commercial) standard).

But please, correct me if I am wrong.

-

Bill

 

[mw174620]

Qoncussion,

I can't see how that's true...or else no one would be able to take a single picture or video without risking future fines or jail time. That doesn't make sense.

The only thing that matters is if the drone pilot himself was paid.

A person could even directly tell a drone pilot "I am going to use your pictures to make money"... But as long as the drone pilot is not compensated for those pictures, the flight is 100% legal, and does not have to be flown under part 107.

It's all about the drone pilot him/herself being compensated. It's all about trying to limit the risk (to people or property) a non-commercially-trained pilot will take when compensation is involved (by training him to a higher (commercial) standard).

But please, correct me if I am wrong.

-

Bill

I believe you are correct on this specific scenario, because the RPIC could say its a hobby and him providing pictures to someone, for nothing, does not constitute commercial activity. However, it is still up to a court to decide. There is not even a list, a section, a rule, a regulation, a law, etc. that spells out or details what is and isn't commercial activity. Any one can read the entirety of 107, it says nothing about taking money or not, etc.

 

[mw174620]

Qoncussion,

I can't see how that's true...or else no one would be able to take a single picture or video without risking future fines or jail time. That doesn't make sense.

The only thing that matters is if the drone pilot himself was paid.

A person could even directly tell a drone pilot "I am going to use your pictures to make money"... But as long as the drone pilot is not compensated for those pictures, the flight is 100% legal, and does not have to be flown under part 107.

It's all about the drone pilot him/herself being compensated. It's all about trying to limit the risk (to people or property) a non-commercially-trained pilot will take when compensation is involved (by training him to a higher (commercial) standard).

But please, correct me if I am wrong.

-

Bill

A side note, I can't find the link, but there is an FAA seminar on Youtube somewhere, where the guy from the FAA was saying basically "any use of a drone for furtherance of a business" is considered to be an operation under Part 107 rules. So in that case, you would knowingly be using your drone for furtherance of a business and according to that FAA rep, would need a part 107. He also made very clear that it was not about exchange of money, it's about what the mission of the drone is about. Again, same point stands, it will take a court case or a few to hammer it out.

 

[wsalopek]

I believe you are correct on this specific scenario, because the RPIC could say its a hobby and him providing pictures to someone, for nothing, does not constitute commercial activity. However, it is still up to a court to decide. There is not even a list, a section, a rule, a regulation, a law, etc. that spells out or details what is and isn't commercial activity. Any one can read the entirety of 107, it says nothing about taking money or not, etc.

MW...

It is true that some parts of Part 107 may be debateble to some extent, but I would have little doubt that if a pilot accepts money for flying his/her drone, there's no judge or reasonable person that would that was NOT a commercial activity.

 

[wsalopek]

Thanks, I just always wonder what is the big deal with taking a photo from the air for a profit? What if I stand on top of a tall building and take the same shot, I guess that would be legal. Confusing to me. Maybe I can put my camera on a tall pole lol.

Yes, you can put your stand on a building or put your camera on a pole...because in that case you are not flying an aircraft in the national airspace system.

There's really nothing confusing. If a person operates an aircraft in the national airspace, which the FAA has been given authority to regulate via laws passed by the government (just like a state/city government regulates how fast you can drive a vehicle on a road), then that person must abide by FAA regulations. Which in this case means that if you fly an aircraft for compensation, you must abide by X, Y, and Z, in other words Part 107.

--

Bill

 

[wsalopek]

You <~~~~~~The vast sea of sarcasm~~~~~~~>The Joke

OK...got it.

 

[mw174620]

Yes, you can put your stand on a building or put your camera on a pole...because in that case you are not flying an aircraft in the national airspace system.

There's really nothing confusing. If a person operates an aircraft in the national airspace, which the FAA has been given authority to regulate via laws passed by the government (just like a state/city government regulates how fast you can drive a vehicle on a road), then that person must abide by FAA regulations. Which in this case means that if you fly an aircraft for compensation, you must abide by X, Y, and Z, in other words Part 107.

--

Bill

Well there is still confusion. I am in complete agreeance with you, I typically default to abiding by 107, even if I am hobby flying. What I am saying is that the FAA has not made some portions clear cut. There is no more clear cut situation, than if you take money for use of your drone, you must have a RP license and abide by 107, I was only mentioning the ambiguity in regards to every other situation.