FAA Monetized Youtube Drone Videos 2020

[itsneedtokno]

Really, it all comes down to intention, just like @PhantomFandom said in post #4.

 

[Meta4]

Don't know why you chose the words "fly for hire".

Because it's a simple way of saying commercial flight.
This forum is full of people that want to complicate the issue (or non-issue) with all kinds of complicated and unlikely scenarios.
The FAA doesn't take the issue anywhere near as seriously as some on the forum do.

The number of people doing doing commercial flights without a 107 is quite large.
But how many fines or prosecutions have you ever heard of for any of them ?

Let's not confuse people further than they already are.

I'm all for reducing confusion and complication.

 

[PhantomFandom]

Weeelllllllll

Your terminology "fly for hire" could get quite a few people in trouble.

It has nothing to do with whether you are "hired" by anybody, and everything to do with compensation.

That's the word nobody is using.

Your terminology and understanding is equally flawed as the term "fly for hire" that you were correcting. Falling under Part 107 has nothing to do with compensation either. So your term of having everything to do with compensation is completely wrong.

You do NOT need to be compensated in order to fall under Part 107.

 

[PhantomFandom]

This forum is full of people that want to complicate the issue (or non-issue) with all kinds of complicated and unlikely scenarios.
The FAA doesn't take the issue anywhere near as seriously as some on the forum do.

The number of people doing doing commercial flights without a 107 is quite large.
But how many fines or prosecutions have you ever heard of for any of them ?

I agree with the fact that the FAA has neither the man-power nor the will to go after someone for a minor infraction like taking a video of a farm for commercial purposes.

However we need to separate that from the regulations. It makes sense to me to inform people of the actual regulations even though they may not be rigorously enforced. If you drive down the interstate at 67 MPH when the speed limit is 65, chances are very good that you will never receive a ticket for it. However you are indeed still breaking the law. So while you can rightly say that it "should be OK" to do so, you can't misrepresent the law and just say that it is legal to do so.

 

[BigAl07]

I think your good to go. Interpretation of the 107 is if your flying in service of someone paying you for your services. Youtube isn't paying you to fly, they're paying you to post videos...be it a drone or a cellphone

That's not accurate Mark. You went off the rail when you went down the "paying for services" rabbit hole. You can be in violation of Part 107 without making a single penny if the INTENT of the flight is not 100% for Hobby/Recreational. Even good hearted VOLUNTEER operations violate Part 107 and they involve NO compensation what so ever.

You can not Hobby/Recreate for someone else period and what the OP is suggesting would need Part 107 because it's their Company YT channel.

The FAA is not worried about a video being Monetized at all. That's missing the point. If you have a business and you're producing UAS Content to support/further/promote the business then it violates Part 107 blatantly. Merely putting a Hobby/Recreational video on your personal YT channel does not change the INTENT of the flight.

FAA is not regulating your YT channel but your flights and the INTENT of the flights. You can do whatever you want with content you create purely as a hobby/recreational operator (even sell it) but you gotta make sure the actual flight itself was 100% within the Hobby/Recreational bubble of protection.

With all this being said... you're going to have a hard time convincing someone that you making an aerial video of your Company's Hay Operation (since they are a business) and posting it on your Company YT channel is not promoting a product/business. If you can convince someone that you may need to go into LAW as a profession.

You're not in my area or I would be giving you a call if I saw aerial video posted on your Company YT channel. There's a difference between monetizing a YT video/channel and creating a Branded/Company YT channel. You'll be hard pressed to prove a video you create and post on the Branded/Company YT channel was just "hobby/recreational" by nature.

I'm not just tossing spit wads here.... I'm affiliated with the FAA but in the Charlotte NC region.

 

[MtnFlyer]

That's not accurate Mark. You went off the rail when you went down the "paying for services" rabbit hole. You can be in violation of Part 107 without making a single penny if the INTENT of the flight is not 100% for Hobby/Recreational. Even good hearted VOLUNTEER operations violate Part 107 and they involve NO compensation what so ever.

You can not Hobby/Recreate for someone else period and what the OP is suggesting would need Part 107 because it's their Company YT channel.

The FAA is not worried about a video being Monetized at all. That's missing the point. If you have a business and you're producing UAS Content to support/further/promote the business then it violates Part 107 blatantly. Merely putting a Hobby/Recreational video on your personal YT channel does not change the INTENT of the flight.

FAA is not regulating your YT channel but your flights and the INTENT of the flights. You can do whatever you want with content you create purely as a hobby/recreational operator (even sell it) but you gotta make sure the actual flight itself was 100% within the Hobby/Recreational bubble of protection.

With all this being said... you're going to have a hard time convincing someone that you making an aerial video of your Company's Hay Operation (since they are a business) and posting it on your Company YT channel is not promoting a product/business. If you can convince someone that you may need to go into LAW as a profession.

You're not in my area or I would be giving you a call if I saw aerial video posted on your Company YT channel. There's a difference between monetizing a YT video/channel and creating a Branded/Company YT channel. You'll be hard pressed to prove a video you create and post on the Branded/Company YT channel was just "hobby/recreational" by nature.

I'm not just tossing spit wads here.... I'm affiliated with the FAA but in the Charlotte NC region.

So we don’t have a company YT channel. It is a personal channel we use to share whats going on at the farm with family, friends and now YouTube subscribers. It’s simply a Vlog and people find farming interesting and like to watch our videos and a ton of other folks farming, tractor/equipment, planting, harvesting, etc. videos on YouTube.

But I thought I’d ask.

Thanks!

 

[itsneedtokno]

Your terminology and understanding is equally flawed as the term "fly for hire" that you were correcting. Falling under Part 107 has nothing to do with compensation either. So your term of having everything to do with compensation is completely wrong.

You do NOT need to be compensated in order to fall under Part 107.

You are correct, as stated further down my post.

It is 100% about intent.

 

[BigAl07]

So we don’t have a company YT channel. It is a personal channel we use to share whats going on at the farm with family, friends and now YouTube subscribers. It’s simply a Vlog and people find farming interesting and like to watch our videos and a ton of other folks farming, tractor/equipment, planting, harvesting, etc. videos on YouTube.

But I thought I’d ask.

Thanks!

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong YT video and Associated channel.

I see the channel named:

Humble Haymakers: JHJ-Farm

Here's a link to the channel and the very first video (the one you linked) clearly states you do hay for SALE.

Humble Haymakers

Humble haymakers from the western mountains of Virginia... We put these videos up for the fun of it - so friends and family can see what's going-on at the fa...

www.youtube.com

The video clearly states, "We make HAY for sale, that's our crop". which means it is clearly a business and the YT channel is for JHJ Farms.

I'm not sure how you could have any argument that the channel is NOT a company YT channel since it's named that way and branded with a JHJ Farm logo. Just because you personally set it up and operate it does not change the fact it's a company YT channel.

 

[MtnFlyer]

Thanks again for everyone’s replies - much appreciated.

To clarify a little bit...

Our Youtube channel is a Vlog, the name of the channel is not the name of the farm or farm business. JHJ is a nod to the initials of my Great Grandfather who started it. Humble Haymakers is a humorous attempt to describe us in our channel name. Zero of our videos are used, nor have ever been used (to my recollection) to promote the farm business in any way, shape or form - directly or indirectly as there are hay business reasons not to share our videos. Sometimes when you cut hay, it can look like crap from a distance while in reality be excellent hay - but you’ve lost a customer over a video, so we’d just don’t share them with customers or promote the farm business with them as sometimes they can muddy the water and we loose a sale. For all intent and purpose, our YT channel could be called something completely unrelated, maybe the John Doe channel.

So to boil everything down to its simplest terms, we have a monetized Youtube channel to which we post monetized videos as a Vlog. We bought a Mavic Mini and would like to add some of those videos to our monetized channel from time to time.

We take a lot of videos, we don’t know if they will wind-up on YouTube or not. If it’s worthy of sharing, we edit down and post. As I mentioned earlier, these videos give family and friends a glimpse in to what’s going on at the farm - a Vlog. We just happen to have enough subscribers and views to monetize and it’s nice to get a little return to offset the cost of cameras, SD cards, etc. Ain’t nobody quitting their day job to make monetized YT videos...

So the question is - does Youtube require a person posting monetized YouTube video to have a 107 certificate?

I’m interested in being square with the applicable regulation and laws from the get-go.

I appreciate the replies - I think I’ll go directly to the FAA for the final answer and live with it.

Thanks again!

 

[BigAl07]

Thanks again for everyone’s replies - much appreciated.

To clarify a little bit...

Our Youtube channel is a Vlog, the name of the channel is not the name of the farm or farm business. JHJ is a nod to the initials of my Great Grandfather who started it. Humble Haymakers is a humorous attempt to describe us in our channel name. Zero of our videos are used, nor have ever been used (to my recollection) to promote the farm business in any way, shape or form - directly or indirectly as there are hay business reasons not to share our videos. Sometimes when you cut hay, it can look like crap from a distance while in reality be excellent hay - but you’ve lost a customer over a video, so we’d just don’t share them with customers or promote the farm business with them as sometimes they can muddy the water and we loose a sale. For all intent and purpose, our YT channel could be called something completely unrelated, maybe the John Doe channel.

So to boil everything down to its simplest terms, we have a monetized Youtube channel to which we post monetized videos as a Vlog. We bought a Mavic Mini and would like to add some of those videos to our monetized channel from time to time.

We take a lot of videos, we don’t know if they will wind-up on YouTube or not. If it’s worthy of sharing, we edit down and post. As I mentioned earlier, these videos give family and friends a glimpse in to what’s going on at the farm - a Vlog. We just happen to have enough subscribers and views to monetize and it’s nice to get a little return to offset the cost of cameras, SD cards, etc. Ain’t nobody quitting their day job to make monetized YT videos...

So the question is - does Youtube require a person posting monetized YouTube video to have a 107 certificate?

I’m interested in being square with the applicable regulation and laws from the get-go.

I appreciate the replies - I think I’ll go directly to the FAA for the final answer and live with it.

Thanks again!

YouTube does NOT require or even know if you have Part 107. YouTube, honestly, doesn't care. That's outside of their Wheel House. Just like they don't care of you drive over the speed limit or drive recklessly in your car videos.

The FAA only cares of the INTENT of the flight is recreational or not.

 

[MtnFlyer]

YouTube does NOT require or even know if you have Part 107. YouTube, honestly, doesn't care. That's outside of their Wheel House. Just like they don't care of you drive over the speed limit or drive recklessly in your car videos.

The FAA only cares of the INTENT of the flight is recreational or not.

Thanks for the info - much appreciated.

BTW - I notice you are from Western NC. My mothers (86 years young) is from Haywood County and I spent a number of summers when I was in high school down there prowling around with Uncles and Aunts in the Smokey Mountains. Some of the best times I've ever had.

Take care & thanks again!

 

[BigAl07]

Here this should help some:

Richmond FSDO – Contact the Office

www.faa.gov

Richmond FSDO
Office Hours by Appointment Only:
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday
Phone: (804) 222-7494, Fax: (804) 222-4843

If you want to email them here's the link:
Send an email

Be sure to share with them the YT link you provided so they can make an accurate reply.

 

[BigAl07]

Thanks for the info - much appreciated.

BTW - I notice you are from Western NC. My mothers (86 years young) is from Haywood County and I spent a number of summers when I was in high school down there prowling around with Uncles and Aunts in the Smokey Mountains. Some of the best times I've ever had.

Take care & thanks again!

Haywood County is where I am. I'm sitting in downtown Waynesville right now and I spent 3 days on the Blue Ridge Parkway this passed weekend camping. I love it here. If you're ever in the area again give me a shout and let's FLY!!

 

[MtnFlyer]

Haywood County is where I am. I'm sitting in downtown Waynesville right now and I spent 3 days on the Blue Ridge Parkway this passed weekend camping. I love it here. If you're ever in the area again give me a shout and let's FLY!!

Thanks - I will.

I had one uncle that lived over in the big city of Clyde...

Based on my own experiences in the mountains down there - years ago, I took a troop of Boy Scouts for a summer camp week at Camp Daniel Boone. Great time.

Thanks again for the info!

 

[BigAl07]

Thanks - I will.

I had one uncle that lived over in the big city of Clyde...

Based on my own experiences in the mountains down there - years ago, I took a troop of Boy Scouts for a summer camp week at Camp Daniel Boone. Great time.

Thanks again for the info!

I live in the "Metropolis" of Clyde. We now have TWO red lights so we are definitely moving up in the world LOL!

Camp Daniel Boone is one of my old stomping grounds. I spent a LOT of time up there and still get up there a few times a year (unfortunately) doing Search & Rescue. Due to it's vantage point in relation to the Blue Ridge Parkway it's a great staging area for our resources so we can deploy into the woods quickly.

 

[MtnFlyer]

Update: I emailed the FAA last night, including a link to our YouTube channel, explaining what we have been discussing here.

Here is the reply I got this morning.

“Let me respond by giving you the context of the law. Direct financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not the determinant for the type of operation you are conducting. All small UAS (under 55 pounds) operations in the U.S. National Airspace System are governed by law. That law is 14 CFR Part 107.

There is a limited statutory exception (a "carve out") to the law which, under certain circumstances, allows operation for recreation ONLY.

If you post drone video to social media you no longer own the rights to that imagery. It is difficult to rationalize that as a recreational use.

My advice is that if you have a remote pilot certificate there is no question that you are abiding by the law.”

 

[BigAl07]

Update: I emailed the FAA last night, including a link to our YouTube channel, explaining what we have been discussing here.

Here is the reply I got this morning.

“Let me respond by giving you the context of the law. Direct financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not the determinant for the type of operation you are conducting. All small UAS (under 55 pounds) operations in the U.S. National Airspace System are governed by law. That law is 14 CFR Part 107.

There is a limited statutory exception (a "carve out") to the law which, under certain circumstances, allows operation for recreation ONLY.

If you post drone video to social media you no longer own the rights to that imagery. It is difficult to rationalize that as a recreational use.

My advice is that if you have a remote pilot certificate there is no question that you are abiding by the law.”

Hmmmm without specifically giving you an exact answer they are saying you need Part 107.

It would be much easier and "cleaner" to go ahead and get Part 107 so that you and your family farm is in the clear. It's just not worth the hassle and risk otherwise. I can tell you that if I got the report on you I would definitely consider your flights promoting your family farm.

 

[Meta4]

It's not unknown for individual FAA staff members to give incorrect advice.

If you post drone video to social media you no longer own the rights to that imagery. It is difficult to rationalize that as a recreational use.

Post it to social media and you you no longer own the rights to that imagery !!!
This is nonsense, the FAA guy is making it up and speaking far beyond his area of expertise.
See the link I posted in Post #7.

 

[PhantomFandom]

So we don’t have a company YT channel. It is a personal channel we use to share whats going on at the farm with family, friends and now YouTube subscribers. It’s simply a Vlog and people find farming interesting and like to watch our videos and a ton of other folks farming, tractor/equipment, planting, harvesting, etc. videos on YouTube.

But I thought I’d ask.

Thanks!

Really does not matter in this case. Just

Update: I emailed the FAA last night, including a link to our YouTube channel, explaining what we have been discussing here.

Here is the reply I got this morning.

“Let me respond by giving you the context of the law. Direct financial compensation, or the lack of it, is not the determinant for the type of operation you are conducting. All small UAS (under 55 pounds) operations in the U.S. National Airspace System are governed by law. That law is 14 CFR Part 107.

There is a limited statutory exception (a "carve out") to the law which, under certain circumstances, allows operation for recreation ONLY.

If you post drone video to social media you no longer own the rights to that imagery. It is difficult to rationalize that as a recreational use.

My advice is that if you have a remote pilot certificate there is no question that you are abiding by the law.”

Typical FSDO double-speak unfortunately. I have heard from @BigAl07 many times about how courteous and helpful his local FSDO is. I sent E-Mail to mine in order to get acquainted and ask dome drone questions. They told me to call. I called and the FAA rep basically pointed me to the regulations. The guy was completely unresponsive and unhelpful. Yes I will mention which office...the Philadelphia FSDO. They really should try to at least be helpful.

As to the one thing he did tell you, it was WRONG! You do not lose your rights to your video when you post on YT.

Hmmmm without specifically giving you an exact answer they are saying you need Part 107.

Very true Al. That's about the only thing you can get out of that non-answer.

Post it to social media and you you no longer own the rights to that imagery !!!
This is nonsense, the FAA guy is making it up and speaking far beyond his area of expertise.

EXACTLY !!

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Old video but it still applies