Employers wants to use footage

[Ren57]

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.

This is what I would have to do, to make the flight the OP has done and get paid for it, legally:

Arrive on the site and do a complete site survey, listing any buildings or structures that may impact the flight. (In other words, walk round the whole area of operation) Take note of anything that may be a danger, power lines, mobile phone masts, buildings, roads and what have you. Write it all up in my pre-flight inspection notes.

Do a on site safety inspection (mitigate any dangers) health and safety legal requirement.

Get permission from all building owners in writing that I intend to fly near, so it is shown that they are under my control. Otherwise I am not allowed by law to fly within 50 metres of any building, vehicle, vessel or structure (150 metres if you are not a PFCO holder).

I also noticed that the OP flew over people. So I would have to get permission, in writing of every single person that I intended to fly over. Putting up a notice somewhere that I am operating a UAV on site is not good enough.

Contact the local police and ask them for permission to close the road that I intended to fly over for the duration of the flight. I would have to erect a cordon and put a notice up saying that the road will be closed to traffic for the duration of the flight.

Check the local airspace and contact any airports that may have flights flying near the area of operation.

Get permission to actually be able to take off and land on the site, in writing. Verbal permission is not good enough.

Erect a 50 metre cordon around my take off and landing point.

Choose an alternative landing site, in case of an emergency landing situation.

Pre-flight check of my UAV (drone) make sure it is fit and safe to fly.

Pre-flight check of all the batteries that I intend to use for the operation. Complete my battery log.

Finally, check the weather forecast! I have stuff written in my operations manual (my operations manual is CAA approved) concerning the type of weather that I can safely fly in. This mainly concerns wind speed.

Do the flight and take my video/photos.

Post flight: Write the whole operation up. How the flight went, were there any problems, batteries used. The words I am looking for here will be right at the end of my post flight report and they are "Flight completed safely, without incident"! If there are any safety incidents during the flight, I may have to report it to the CAA, depending on the severity of any incident.

Now, can you get some kind of handle of why I get just a tiny little bit pi**** off when an unauthorised operator sells their content. Whether it is legal or not. I'll concede by what has been previously said that it looks like a person could sell their content legally. As long as you are abiding by the rules concerning the flight. I still think that fits into the area of a loophole, so we will have to agree to disagree on that one. But I can say that the OP's flight, was in no way shape or form legal.

 

[Cymruflyer]

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.

Well let me make it even more clear here, because you seem to be missing my point.

Someone wanted me to take photos or video for them and we all know the regulations covering that and the need for a commercial license. So, we pretend that I did the filming for my self, who other than the two parties, would know any different here, and then pretend that these people suddenly saw my footage/images and said they liked it and wanted to buy it. So now you say I can legally sell it to them? Again a massive loophole here. We all know what is going on but we pretend I was out having fun flying for myself and thought oooohhh great photo or video to take here, just for fun of course and just for me to look at. Now I hope you understand my meaning in this situation. As I said, a loophole, if what you say is really correct, and no one can disprove what I really did.

 

[choo choo]

This is what I would have to do, to make the flight the OP has done and get paid for it, legally:

Arrive on the site and do a complete site survey, listing any buildings or structures that may impact the flight. (In other words, walk round the whole area of operation) Take note of anything that may be a danger, power lines, mobile phone masts, buildings, roads and what have you. Write it all up in my pre-flight inspection notes.

Do a on site safety inspection (mitigate any dangers) health and safety legal requirement.

Get permission from all building owners in writing that I intend to fly near, so it is shown that they are under my control. Otherwise I am not allowed by law to fly within 50 metres of any building, vehicle, vessel or structure (150 metres if you are not a PFCO holder).

I also noticed that the OP flew over people. So I would have to get permission, in writing of every single person that I intended to fly over. Putting up a notice somewhere that I am operating a UAV on site is not good enough.

Contact the local police and ask them for permission to close the road that I intended to fly over for the duration of the flight. I would have to erect a cordon and put a notice up saying that the road will be closed to traffic for the duration of the flight.

Check the local airspace and contact any airports that may have flights flying near the area of operation.

Get permission to actually be able to take off and land on the site, in writing. Verbal permission is not good enough.

Erect a 50 metre cordon around my take off and landing point.

Choose an alternative landing site, in case of an emergency landing situation.

Pre-flight check of my UAV (drone) make sure it is fit and safe to fly.

Pre-flight check of all the batteries that I intend to use for the operation. Complete my battery log.

Finally, check the weather forecast! I have stuff written in my operations manual (my operations manual is CAA approved) concerning the type of weather that I can safely fly in. This mainly concerns wind speed.

Do the flight and take my video/photos.

Post flight: Write the whole operation up. How the flight went, were there any problems, batteries used. The words I am looking for here will be right at the end of my post flight report and they are "Flight completed safely, without incident"! If there are any safety incidents during the flight, I may have to report it to the CAA, depending on the severity of any incident.

Now, can you get some kind of handle of why I get just a tiny little bit pi**** off when an unauthorised operator sells their content. Whether it is legal or not. I'll concede by what has been previously said that it looks like a person could sell their content legally. As long as you are abiding by the rules concerning the flight. I still think that fits into the area of a loophole, so we will have to agree to disagree on that one. But I can say that the OP's flight, was in no way shape or form legal.

Yup. I can see exactly, cos I do things the same way, and don’t get me started about the weather, do people not understand that a light wind at ground level can be howling at 400 feet. And they wonder why they have flyaways.

 

[Meta4]

Again a massive loophole here.

It's not a massive loophole because if you were to do it more than once or twice, you'd establish a pattern that would show flying with commercial intent.

 

[choo choo]

Well let me make it even more clear here, because you seem to be missing my point.

Someone wanted me to take photos or video for them and we all know the regulations covering that and the need for a commercial license. So, we pretend that I did the filming for my self, who other than the two parties, would know any different here, and then pretend that these people suddenly saw my footage/images and said they liked it and wanted to buy it. So now you say I can legally sell it to them? Again a massive loophole here. We all know what is going on but we pretend I was out having fun flying for myself and thought oooohhh great photo or video to take here, just for fun of course and just for me to look at. Now I hope you understand my meaning in this situation. As I said, a loophole, if what you say is really correct, and no one can disprove what I really did.

It is indeed a bit of a loophole, but it’s there and like all loopholes, the dishonest, unscrupulous or those that are ‘economical with the truth’ will get away with it......for a while. Theres nothing at all to stop you doing exactly that...however
To disprove what you did wasn’t a commercial venture would require a dishonest accounts dept. How many companies are going to pay for your services without an invoice, how many would openly lie to an investigator to save your bacon?
There will always be a trail to follow, you might get away with it once, twice, three times if you find enough companies willing to pay for your services without an invoice or in cash.
And daft as it seems, if you go to the letter of the law...supposing a mate wants his chimney inspecting by drone, says he’ll give you a crate of beer or £20 if you’ll do it and give him the footage. Who’s going to know? Only you and your mate.
Strictly speaking you are then a commercial flight, and without pfco (or part 107 in the states) the flight would be illegal (not illegal to sell the photos by the way) But as you say, who’s to know only you and your pal.
But there ya go. It says 30 mph in my village but if I go at 40 and there’s nobody around to see or report it, who’s to know? does it make it legal? Only until I get caught.
Best wishes. Brian

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

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.

Just another opinion from across the pond. From the comments, it appears the OP MAY HAVE been flying illegally. So the other concern would be, if he contacts CAA and they view the video, will they determine that it was an illegal or unsafe flight regardless if whether it was commercial or not, and charge the OP accordingly.

Cymruflyer's statement about prearranging a statement should they get caught is a good example of those that make it difficult on those trying to do the right thing. He is acknowledging a work around, and supporting playing games with the system. This encourages others to fly illegally with an end result of more regulations. And should he ever do this himself, he just documented his intent on a worldwide forum.

 

[Ren57]

Just another opinion from across the pond. From the comments, it appears the OP MAY HAVE been flying illegally. So the other concern would be, if he contacts CAA and they view the video, will they determine that it was an illegal or unsafe flight regardless if whether it was commercial or not, and charge the OP accordingly.

Cymruflyer's statement about prearranging a statement should they get caught is a good example of those that make it difficult on those trying to do the right thing. He is acknowledging a work around, and supporting playing games with the system. This encourages others to fly illegally with an end result of more regulations. And should he ever do this himself, he just documented his intent on a worldwide forum.

The OP is flying in a clearly congested area. If I were legally offered that job, I would turn it down because it'd be just too much work to make it worthwhile. I am a sole operator, so I'd have to go about getting all the written permissions myself. If I was working for say, a video production company, then other people would get to do all the leg work! As PIC, all I would have to do is turn up and do the flight, check the weather and write up my logs. I doubt very much that OP performed all the tasks that I listed to perform a safe flight. So yes, the flight was probably illegal. But good luck to him, if he can get away with it and no-one finds out, then no harm done. I would however take your advice and not contact the CAA. If they see that video, they will be wanting a conversation with the OP and I don't think that conversation would end well!

 

[choo choo]

Just another opinion from across the pond. From the comments, it appears the OP MAY HAVE been flying illegally. So the other concern would be, if he contacts CAA and they view the video, will they determine that it was an illegal or unsafe flight regardless if whether it was commercial or not, and charge the OP accordingly.

Cymruflyer's statement about prearranging a statement should they get caught is a good example of those that make it difficult on those trying to do the right thing. He is acknowledging a work around, and supporting playing games with the system. This encourages others to fly illegally with an end result of more regulations. And should he ever do this himself, he just documented his intent on a worldwide forum.

Thank you.
It is possible that the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) may view the flight as illegal. And entirely possible they may prosecute.
I was on the receiving end of a possible prosecution myself, and it’s not a nice feeling.
I thought I hadn’t done anything wrong, but I was still worried that maybe I’d missed something.
Thankfully I was given the thumbs up, I was given a few ‘learning points’ but nothing illegal or dangerous was identified.
I get the impression they would like to educate more than enforce, education is more effective. I suppose it depends on each individual case.

 

[Cymruflyer]

It is indeed a bit of a loophole, but it’s there and like all loopholes, the dishonest, unscrupulous or those that are ‘economical with the truth’ will get away with it......for a while. Theres nothing at all to stop you doing exactly that...however
To disprove what you did wasn’t a commercial venture would require a dishonest accounts dept. How many companies are going to pay for your services without an invoice, how many would openly lie to an investigator to save your bacon?
There will always be a trail to follow, you might get away with it once, twice, three times if you find enough companies willing to pay for your services without an invoice or in cash.
And daft as it seems, if you go to the letter of the law...supposing a mate wants his chimney inspecting by drone, says he’ll give you a crate of beer or £20 if you’ll do it and give him the footage. Who’s going to know? Only you and your mate.
Strictly speaking you are then a commercial flight, and without pfco (or part 107 in the states) the flight would be illegal (not illegal to sell the photos by the way) But as you say, who’s to know only you and your pal.
But there ya go. It says 30 mph in my village but if I go at 40 and there’s nobody around to see or report it, who’s to know? does it make it legal? Only until I get caught.
Best wishes. Brian

I understand Brian, and of course most people have done the slightly off colour thing such as the chimney thing you put forward and no one knows the difference. As for speeding, too often in the UK now they have the bloody cameras everywhere, so it is too risky. But in the old days who did not speed half the time, or most of the time?

 

[Cymruflyer]

It's not a massive loophole because if you were to do it more than once or twice, you'd establish a pattern that would show flying with commercial intent.

Ohh of course I fully understand that. However, if it were done person to person for cash, so both parties benefited from the arrangement, no one is every going to know what is really taking place. Naturally with a large corporation this sort of thing will not be possible.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Just another opinion from across the pond. From the comments, it appears the OP MAY HAVE been flying illegally. So the other concern would be, if he contacts CAA and they view the video, will they determine that it was an illegal or unsafe flight regardless if whether it was commercial or not, and charge the OP accordingly.

Cymruflyer's statement about prearranging a statement should they get caught is a good example of those that make it difficult on those trying to do the right thing. He is acknowledging a work around, and supporting playing games with the system. This encourages others to fly illegally with an end result of more regulations. And should he ever do this himself, he just documented his intent on a worldwide forum.

Listen, listen... I am NOT condoning anything here, so don't get your knickers in a twist. I was responding to another comment that the person was saying that it was possible to sell your photos after the fact. I have stated from the beginning that I did not feel that was a possibility, because I have always assumed that even selling after the flying event took place, it would then be considered a commercial venture and I always thought that would not be allowed.

Then someone pointed out that the CAA don't care if you sell your images at a later date. That is why I said it seems a loophole has appeared regarding flying recreationally and taking photos that you sell later. As for posting my intentions of doing this on an international forum... that's a bit too silly to even think about, you are being far too serious and probably have not been following all the posts, in order to see where we are currently at in the whole discussion.

My statement was to get to the bottom of what someone else posted, to be sure I fully understood what he was saying. Everything was, and still is, hypothetical. You need to read all the posts in such a discussion, so that you are fully understanding what is going on here, not just read a few posts and then come to an incorrect assumption about someone or something. I do not condone people doing such things to skirt around the commercial aspect of drone flying and in fact get annoyed when I see such things happening, because it is a slap in the face to all of us who do conduct legal flying and continues to create a situation that will possibly affect all our freedoms of flight in the future. Now do you understand?

 

[Ren57]

Well. It all seems to be getting a bit too serious now. The OP has been offered money for video content he made but he is not a commercial PFCO holder. I thought that would be illegal even if his intention at the time of making the flight was not to sell the video. It would appear that he CAN exploit a loophole and sell his content legally, I get that now but were he to try this a few more times, it might not end so well. It also appears that even the CAA are OK with this practice. Which I think is a bit of a kick in the teeth for all the people (especially the people who have done it themselves and paid to get the qualification with their own hard-earned) who have bothered to stay legal and acquire a PFCO.

However, having watched the OP's video in its entirety, it clearly shows that the flight is in any case illegal because he's broken just about every flying regulation that you can break concerning flying in a congested area. To be honest, he probably didn't even know the regulations. That's not an excuse but it probably is a fact. If he can sell his content legally, then great. But, if I were him I'd think twice. Imagine this scenario. The university use his content in an advertisement or some kind of university promotion. Someone from the CAA sees that content and decides to find out which operator was making the flight. They would probably approach the university directly to get that information. Then, the game is up for the OP. He might have sold his content legally but the flight he made to get that content was clearly illegal. The university would probably get a fine as well, not because the content was illegal but the actual flight was. And that brothers and sisters is the reason why you should always use a qualified PFCO holder!

And moving forward - there's a lesson to be learned here for everyone who flies and posts their content for the world to see. If your posted content shows that you have been flying illegally, then someone from the authorities may decide to follow that up. Unlikely I know but it has happened.....

 

[choo choo]

Well. It all seems to be getting a bit too serious now. The OP has been offered money for video content he made but he is not a commercial PFCO holder. I thought that would be illegal even if his intention at the time of making the flight was not to sell the video. It would appear that he CAN exploit a loophole and sell his content legally, I get that now but were he to try this a few more times, it might not end so well. It also appears that even the CAA are OK with this practice. Which I think is a bit of a kick in the teeth for all the people (especially the people who have done it themselves and paid to get the qualification with their own hard-earned) who have bothered to stay legal and acquire a PFCO.

However, having watched the OP's video in its entirety, it clearly shows that the flight is in any case illegal because he's broken just about every flying regulation that you can break concerning flying in a congested area. To be honest, he probably didn't even know the regulations. That's not an excuse but it probably is a fact. If he can sell his content legally, then great. But, if I were him I'd think twice. Imagine this scenario. The university use his content in an advertisement or some kind of university promotion. Someone from the CAA sees that content and decides to find out which operator was making the flight. They would probably approach the university directly to get that information. Then, the game is up for the OP. He might have sold his content legally but the flight he made to get that content was clearly illegal. The university would probably get a fine as well, not because the content was illegal but the actual flight was. And that brothers and sisters is the reason why you should always use a qualified PFCO holder!

And moving forward - there's a lesson to be learned here for everyone who flies and posts their content for the world to see. If your posted content shows that you have been flying illegally, then someone from the authorities may decide to follow that up. Unlikely I know but it has happened.....

I thought we were having a great discussion, and no offence intended or taken.
Spot on cymruflyer and ren57, especially ren57 for your latest post because in your very last paragraph you say it’s unlikely. Well it’s exactly what happened to me. Thankfully my flying was legal, even tho the informant reported that I may have been too low near a road. And as you say ‘a lesson to be learned’ has certainly made me think more about where and how I fly.
The latest video on you tube from ‘drone girl’ is horrifying as she allows the MP to take off and hover only a few feet from her small child.
She clearly was having connection problems and lands the drone before taking off again. I dread to think what damage those spinning props could do to a small child if she lost control of the MP.

 

[Meta4]

I did not feel that was a possibility, because I have always assumed that even selling after the flying event took place, it would then be considered a commercial venture and I always thought that would not be allowed.

The only venture that the CAA has jurisdiction over is the flying, which was not carried out as a commercial venture.

I think is a bit of a kick in the teeth for all the people (especially the people who have done it themselves and paid to get the qualification with their own hard-earned) who have bothered to stay legal and acquire a PFCO.

Forget the tiny loophole that allows someone who is lucky enough to capture imagery for which they are later offered money.
The number of people this happens to is very small and the existence of the loophole has no effect on anything.
The much bigger slap in the face for those that paid so much to obtain their PFCO is that the CAA does nothing about the very large number of flyers blatantly engaging in commercial activity.

The university would probably get a fine as well, not because the content was illegal but the actual flight was. And that brothers and sisters is the reason why you should always use a qualified PFCO holder!

That's just fanciful and isn't going to happen at all.
The CAA aren't the aerial photography police and they can't can't someone because the person that flew the aerial video they bought, did something wrong.
It's the flying that matters and the only person they can take action against is the one that did the flying.

 

[choo choo]

The only venture that the CAA has jurisdiction over is the flying, which was not carried out as a commercial venture.

Forget the tiny loophole that allows someone who is lucky enough to capture imagery for which they are later offered money.
The number of people this happens to is very small and the existence of the loophole has no effect on anything.
The much bigger slap in the face for those that paid so much to obtain their PFCO is that the CAA does nothing about the very large number of flyers blatantly engaging in commercial activity.

That's just fanciful and isn't going to happen at all.
The CAA aren't the aerial photography police and they can't can't someone because the person that flew the aerial video they bought, did something wrong.
It's the flying that matters and the only person they can take action against is the one that did the flying.

I suspect cymruflyer is getting confused with the legal position of someone commissioning a flyer to do some filming without first checking they have pfco.
Rather than,as in this case, just buying the rights for some film shot previously without having being commissioned for the flight.
If the organisation, (in this case a University), HAD commissioned the OP to carry out the mission without checking he held pfco, then the University can be prosecuted along with the flyer, should the flight be investigated by the CAA and the flyer found to not have pfco.
Because this is very new technology and the rules and regulations are still catching up, I think a lot of organisations will be unaware of their legal responsibilities as the commissioning party towards ensuring pfco compliance.
Regards Brian

 

[Cymruflyer]

The only venture that the CAA has jurisdiction over is the flying, which was not carried out as a commercial venture.
.

Ummm, well your assumption may seem reasonable but the CAA do reach back after what was thought to be a non commercial flight, comes to light. I say that because if you took a friend for a flight and you both enjoyed a simple pleasure flight which was non commercial and you had a simple PPL, not a commercial license, you would assume all is well and you are in the clear. Then after the flight you and your friend went to the pub and he bought you your drinks and paid for your meal and someone who had it in for you, recorded and reported that to the CAA, the CAA could take that as you having just made a flight for gain, not cash but payment in another form.

This did happen to a pilot a number of years ago now, I recall reading about it when I lived back in the UK. All our club members were shocked that the pilot was prosecuted by the CAA. Non of us ever dreamed that such a thing could happen, but it could and did. I don't know if the CAA have amended such things since, but the CAA can and have looked back at what, on the surface, seemed like a non commercial flight. If they have not changed anything since that incident, then you might rethink what you assume the CAA has jurisdiction over

 

[Porky]

I have found all the threads on this topic very interesting to read. I’m not a expert on the laws when it comes to the CAA/FAA guidelines, CAA for me being here in the uk. But I fly safe & abide by the rules to the best of my knowledge.

Again very interesting

 

[Meta4]

If they have not changed anything since that incident, then you might rethink what you assume the CAA has jurisdiction over

I can't think of a way to make this any simpler.
The flight was not a commercial flight when it was done.
As far as we know, no money has yet changed hands for it.
The CAA only has jurisdiction over matters of flight and the people doing the flying.
The CAA didn't fine the guy that paid for the meal, did they?

 

[Cymruflyer]

I can't think of a way to make this any simpler.
The flight was not a commercial flight when it was done.
As far as we know, no money has yet changed hands for it.
The CAA only has jurisdiction over matters of flight and the people doing the flying.
The CAA didn't fine the guy that paid for the meal, did they?

I am not disputing the OP's flight was non commercial, the OP who did the University filming. He did that for himself, and as some have suggested, might have flown illegally, whether he filmed or not. The point I am making is the fact that what ever was originally flown (flying for fun while taking video/photos with no commercial license), can change with respect to what happens at a later date regarding the sale of the material filmed as a non commercial flight. Regarding my comments on flying for food and drink in a real aircraft, he passenger who paid for drinks and dinner, was not fined, he was a passenger and not a pilot. The private pilot of an aircraft is the one who may be later prosecuted for doing something that was, at the time, thought of as none commercial.

We have two different things here. One is what the OP did and then we have lots of people saying he is fine and nothing can happen to him if he later sells his film, because he originally flew for fun. The fact is that the CAA might well be able to do something at a later date to anyone who may fly for fun and film and later sell the footage. And that is what needs to be taken into consideration.

As for the entity who makes the purchase of the film or stills, I have no idea about their responsibility in the matter of such a sale. Enough has been said on this so there is no point in beating it up anymore.

 

[Meta4]

The fact is that the CAA might well be able to do something at a later date o anyone who may fly for fun and film and later sell the footage. And that is what needs to be taken into consideration.

That's not a fact, it's you thinking aloud.
As pointed out in post #33, the CAA has said (what needs to be taken into 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?"