Employers wants to use footage
- Thread starter Meelius
- Start date
Consider working with them on a compromise of interests.
You could accept financial help toward your PFCO studies stating that once completed you could provide more footage at agreed upon shots/angles for their marketing.
Or, ask for a donation in exchange. A one-off donation is not likely to cause an issue with your government.
If the campus is a part of a network of campuses, consider becoming their go to for the other school aerial marketing needs. If you have any skill with a DSLR, or mirrorless camera, provide the complete photographic package.
Regarding your 1000 pound study course, I live in the US, and have what I assume is the equivalent, the Part 107 certification, I did not need a study course. There are many resources available online, and all that I used were free. It did cost me $150 to take the test, but I studied for free.
In the US, the focus is on reading sectionals, airspace, weather forecasts, and when in doubt, the answer is Remote Pilot in Command.
Correct. The CAA are only concerned with aviation safety. But (this is the law in the UK) you can only use photographic or video content for a commercial purpose, if you hold a current and valid PFCO, that's the equivalent of a Part 107 or whatever it's called in the USA. The process of obtaining a PFCO, is to prove to the CAA that you can operate safely and understand air rules and regulations and adhere to them. So attaining a PFCO does fall into the realm of aviation safety. Any person who does not hold a current and valid PFCO and uses their photographic or video content for a commercial purpose, is breaking the law in the UK. And any third party that uses the same for a commercial purpose is also breaking the law. This is not a debate or something that is open to interpretation, it's the law. Get the university or whatever to pay for you to take your PCFO and once you have obtained that, you're good to go....
Another fundamentalist interpretation from another forum lawyer.
And it's wrong.
Try asking the CAA what their thoughts are rather than making up your own interpretation or repeating what you heard from someone online.
Any offence (if there was one) is unlicensed commercial aviation, not buying or selling a photo.
choo choo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 300
- Reactions
- 263
- Age
- 60
Wrong, but right. Yes if you take photo for commercial purpose intentionally and don’t have a pfco then the flight is illegal.
HOWEVER. You can take photo and video as a hobbyist without any intention whatsoever ever of selling it, then later sell it. That is ok and doesn’t make the flight illegal. It’s all about the intention. Do you intend the flight to be for commercial purposes or for hobbyist reasons. You can be a commercial flyer and take photos for recreation hobby but can’t be a hobbyist and take photos with intent on selling them commercially. But can be a hobbyist and take photos for hobby, but later, could be years later, sell them.
Call the CAA to get a clarification. Document when and who you talked to and their response. If they are the enforcing agency there, they are the ones you should be getting your answer from. If they say you are good to go to sell this previous hobby video to the University, then tell the university that it was taken on your own time, but you are willing to sell it for their commercial use. And rather than just sell them a copy for one time use, you might upcharge the sell by offering them the full rights for a significantly higher amount. The marketing will be familiar with this option and used to paying for rights. If you do go this route make a stipulation that you still have the right to use a copy in your portfolio for future use when you go commercial. As an example, when I recently completed a progressive construction project, on top of the fees for shooting the videos and photos, I sold them full rights which added several thousand to the final bill. The university has a budget for just this type of situation so they are prepared to pay for video and photos for their marketing. And this budget can be very high. You created a video as a hobby venture, they like it and want to use it in a way that will make them a lot of money. So as long as CAA says your good to sell in this one time situation, then you should make what you can, not just let the university make a lot on your work and not pay for it. It IS YOUR Property regardless if it is Hobby or Commercial. Just my personal oppinion, take it for what it is worth.
Just thought about the rights issue. I am in the US and do not know how rights are handled in the UK, so you may need to talk to someone else in your area about that point. In either case, charge them accordingly. They spend lots of money on marketing, so you should be compensated accordingly if they want to use it.
And when all is said and done, we would love to see your video. If you post is, make sure to put your watermark or copyright on the media.
Just thought about the rights issue. I am in the US and do not know how rights are handled in the UK, so you may need to talk to someone else in your area about that point. In either case, charge them accordingly. They spend lots of money on marketing, so you should be compensated accordingly if they want to use it.
And when all is said and done, we would love to see your video. If you post is, make sure to put your watermark or copyright on the media.
Last edited:
choo choo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 300
- Reactions
- 263
- Age
- 60
choo choo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 300
- Reactions
- 263
- Age
- 60
You are most welcome, it’s nice to see a decent , well thought out post with good advice. Many regards. Brian
Wrong but right. Of course, anybody can make a perfectly legal flight, take all the photos or video you want and that is perfectly legal. But as soon as you want to sell that content, it's the time/date you took the video or photos that matters. How can I make this any clearer than it already is. It is illegal for anyone to sell their content unless they hold a current and valid PFCO. If you don't believe me, contact the CAA yourself and they will tell you that this is the case. If it wasn't the case, then why would anyone even bother to go through the expense and the all the hassle of getting the PFCO qualification? As I said before, you can interpret it anyway you like but this is the law in the UK. If you think it's alright to do as you suggest, then go ahead and do it. But don't be surprised if the authorities come knocking at your door asking to see your PFCO. I know that is unlikely but just be aware.
Last edited:
And you know this, how? Can you support your assertion with anything authoritative or are you just giving your interpretation or something you heard an a forum somewhere?
Indeed, I am a current PFCO holder and know this to be the case. If you don't believe it, contact the CAA yourself. I already know the reply. I'll just make it easy for you because you seem to be having trouble understanding it. IT IS ILLEGAL TO SELL YOUR PHOTOGRAPHIC OR VIDEO CONTENT FOR MONEY OR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION IF YOU DO NOT HOLD A CURRENT AND VALID PFCO IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.. There, have you got it now? This is not something I have made up for the sake of an argument on a forum, it is the law in the UK. I don't care what you think or believe or how you interpret this but it is a fact. Ignorance of the law is no defence in a court of law. You do or believe whatever you like, I really don't care......
Yes .. I've got that you believe it but I can't see anything on the CAA's website to back up what you are saying.
I see plenty about commercial operations, including definitions but nothing about sales of imagery taken legally in the past.
The OP isn't looking to carry out commercial operations.
The flight was in the past and carried out without any contract between an operator and a customer and with no remuneration or other valuable consideration.
On their website, the CAA does say in relation to determining whether a flight is commercial or not ...
The essential question that needs to be asked is “what is the purpose of the (specific) flight?” i.e."If I were not receiving payment/valuable consideration, would I still be looking to fly?"
It's the flight that the CAA is concerned about - not selling a picture or video well after the flight.
If there was an offense, it would be one of unlicensed commercial operation.
But the operation was not commercial, so needed no licence.
That the OP may be lucky enough to have something, that someone might be willing to pay for after the event, doesn't change his past recreational flight into a flight undertaken with the intent of producing something for sale.
Of course, anyone that set a pattern of doing this could be suspected of actually engaging in unlicensed commercial flight but a one off where the flyer is approached well after the flight .... no.
ANd while on the topic of the rules versus someone's interpretation of the rules, I'd have to also challenge what you said previously:
That really sounds like a stretch, suggesting that the CAA would take action against someone using a photo.
I'll believe that one when I see supporting evidence.
AMann
Well-Known Member
Thanks, good info for those of us in the US, but also some more questions for those of us in the UK...
Last edited:
I believe Ren57 has it right. The CAA clearly spells out, you MUST hold the commercial license to carry out photography that will be used in any way commercially, after that flight. As for the length of time from when a photo was taken to a time that it might be offered for sale, I can not say, so perhaps it is best to run that past the CAA. The CAA are very much concerned with the flight because that flight must be conducted under the license that pilot holds. So that means if you are taking some one for a flight in your plane as a private pilot and charging them, that is not allowed because you do not hold a commercial pilot's license. And you also cannot go flying and take photos that you will then later sell because again, you need a commercial license to do that. It is the same in the USA with the FAA, if you are perceived to be getting some sort of gain from that flight, you need to have a commercial license to operate that flight.
As a pilot from the UK I can tell you that it is so strict with GA flight that, for example, if I were to go flying and my friend wanted to come along and we both jumped into my plane and went for a flight and after getting back, he would not be allowed to offer to share in fuel costs. He would also not be allowed to pay for dinner if we, for example, went to a restaurant afterwards, as a thank you for taking him flying. In fact it would be illegal for him to even offer to buy my drinks at a bar later, as a thank you.
I say this because it once happened, not to me but to another pilot. The pilot took a friend to a short hop across the channel to France. They later went to a bar (can't recall if it was in France or back in the UK) and the friend bought his beer. It was reported and the pilot was fined because he flew for commercial gain. The purchase of his beer by the passenger was deemed to be his commercial gain, it did not have to be money.
Now this is of course a very rare case but does go to show what the law really is and what can happen if someone gets reported. In the UK, it is failure standard practice to take turns buying rounds of drinks at the pub, when out with a group. And as in the US, people often invite others to dinner and pick up the bill. However, the difference here was the fact that it was deemed to be payment for taking the friend for a flight and that, is the illegal part of the whole affair.
From what I remember, the pilot was reported and recorded by someone who had grudge against the pilot. Many pilots have taken friends for flights and had dinner and or drinks bought for them later, and or had some cash slipped to them for fuel costs, as a thank you for taking them flying. This has always gone on and I am sure, is still going on today and no pilots are being fined, because no one is reporting them. That still does not make it legal to accept, though the law is, to most people, ridiculous. With that said though, as has already been stated here, if there were not such strict laws, what would entice anyone to go through all the effort and cost of earning a commercial license? It is that simple.
Last edited:
choo choo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 300
- Reactions
- 263
- Age
- 60
I can’t make it any clearer, and the reason I know is because the authorities did come knocking on my door when I allowed a third party to buy and use video I filmed in exactly the same way as the OP.
A police officer saw it and reported it. He thought it might have been closer than 150feet to a building not under my control. (It wasn’t because I gained permission to film it before it was to be demolished, as it was a part of local history)
The authorities contacted me and demanded my pfco and flight records, dates and times etc.
I gave them everything they required and as I flew as a hobbyist at the time with no intention of selling the video at the time for commercial gain, it wasn’t available for public use except on social media which is allowed, (the CAA regs allow this) purely my own property which someone liked and wished to pay me for the right to use it within their organisation. They did not directly or indirectly commission or control the flight when it occurred, (ie, I wasn’t paid or commissioned to take the video at the time or prior to the flight taking place).
It was ruled that there was no case to answer, everything was perfectly legal and within the regulations and I received a nice letter from them with contact names and numbers should I ever need any advice. And I did.
The difference you seem to be missing is the intention to fly for commercial gain.
For commercial gain, a flight has to be paid or commissioned by a third party, money, goods or services in kind or contract has to change hands. If that’s done then the flyer has to be pfco certified with all the attendant rules or the FLIGHT is illegal.
Selling the video or photographs isnt, and never has been but the FLIGHT would be if it was for commercial gain, that’s what the CAA are interested in. If you are a hobbyist and just happen to have an interesting film that belongs to you and get offered money for it at a later date, as I did, all well and good. I had no intention of selling, no money,commission or contract changed hands prior to the flight, the purchaser of the film had contacted me a year after the flight had occurred, they had no direct or indirect control over my flight and the director just happened to hear about it so therefore the flight was as a recreational hobby and the film is my own personal property to do what I please with, so the company bought the rights for them to use the film. And that was the crucial difference. They didn’t commission me to fly and film for them.
Last edited:
Interesting... So basically you are saying if I were to fly and take photos and or video for someone and then we agreed that they would say, they just happened to see my stuff a few weeks later, it would be perfectly legal to sell it to them? Seems an easy loop hole to work commercially with out a license.
choo choo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 300
- Reactions
- 263
- Age
- 60
Not quite. You say ‘taking video or photos for someone’, that implies that they have asked you to take them, they have therefore a direct or indirect input into your flight and a verbal contract has taken place so you need to be certified for the flight to be legal.
The difference is if you were flying for your own hobby or recreation and took some video or photos and just happened to show it to someone, or they saw it on social media (you tube for example)
Then a little while later someone says, ‘hey that’s interesting we’d like to use’ it. Of course you hold the copyright to the film, and they need to purchase those rights from you to be able to use the film. We don’t live in a dictatorship where the CAA or anyone else can prosecute you for selling your own film taken in your own time flying your own drone safely as a hobby.
However...if you contact the organisation and offer your services to do some more flying and filming or they ask you to fly and film some more in return for some remuneration then you MUST be pfco certified, because that becomes the intention and purpose of the flight and therefore would be illegal without the pfco. That’s why ren57 is indeed completely right but slightly wrong. The OP has some personal footage from a personal flight which he took and someone wishes to buy the rights to use.
However if the OP now decides he can do some more flying and start to offer the footage around, then he’s flying illegally. Interestingly and I hope ren57 agrees with me on this.
If the OP was flying as a commercial operation, (we know he wasn’t) then the video he has shown looks to be illegal due to the close proximity to congested area, (railway, buildings, city etc). unless he gained an exemption to the air navigation order from the CAA to enable him to fly closer than 150 feet etc, and he can only apply if he’s pfco certified.
Last edited:
I have heard many excuses over the years I have held a PFCO by unauthorised operators. Basically they just say "it's not commercial" or it wasn't intended to be commercial. Having said that, I do get what you are saying. Even though it does look to be a massive loophole. I have looked at the OP's video. He's flying pretty close to buildings (did he have permission by the university to do that, were the buildings under his control in other words). He flies directly over a main road crowded with traffic (a big no no that one) what if his drone had suddenly lost a prop and fallen out of the sky at that point, smashed through a cars windscreen and injured one of the occupants? I have to have public liability insurance as a PFCO holder, not cheap I can assure you, did the OP? I still wouldn't have flown over that road though, that's part of what holding a PFCO is all about, mitigating risk. I would not have flown over that road in other words. I get what you are saying about the selling content after the fact. But looking at that video, I'd say the flight itself wasn't legal.
choo choo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2017
- Messages
- 300
- Reactions
- 263
- Age
- 60
I totally agree, and that’s why I say you are right and slightly wrong. Yes he can sell his bit of film he made as a hobby, (tho we both think the flight is a bit ‘dodgy’ to say the least).
He can’t now decide, ‘hmm I can do some more, offer it to the University or whoever and make some money, that’s now commercial and the flight isn’t then legal unless pfco.
So it’s not a great loophole as such.
I it annoys me when I,and yourself,comply with all the guidelines and restrictions.
You as a pfco
Me as if I was pfco, for safety’s and legal sake.
I also believe it shows people, who don’t know about flying, that I take safety responsibly.
Rather than just ‘rocking up’ and risking everyone’s safety with irresponsible flying. Let’s face it, if the general public could be trusted to act responsibly & safely, we’d all be going around in flying cars. (Well, according to Tomorrow’s World back in the 70s).
You only have to read some of the threads on here and elsewhere to realise that there are some pretty dumb-***** attempting to fly and getting it wrong. Imagine what it would be like as the market expands exponentially!!! Without any sort of regulation. Carnage would ensue eventually.
Very best wishes. Brian.
Last edited:
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
New Threads
-
3 M mode Vitosha mountain and light clouds- Started by alex_markov
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Forum statistics
