FAA Monetized Youtube Drone Videos 2020

[MtnFlyer]

Let me just say a few things and then I need to make a post about Mavic Mini propellers...

Firstly - much thanks for everyone's replies, much appreciated.

Secondly - not sure the path we will take regarding our drone videos and youtube, but we won't be posting drone videos to our farm channel unless we have a 107 certificate.

Thirdly - No one knows our farm and youtube channel more than I do. A few posts really don't give a whole picture of our farm and the non-relationship it has to our youtube channel. I am 100% sure (and would set down with anyone from the FAA to show/discuss) that in no way, shape or form does the channel promote our farm business. I would respectfully appreciate the benefit of the doubt on this.

I'm looking into 107 and will leave it there.

Thanks again for everyone's replies and take care!!!!

 

[BigAl07]

Let me just say a few things and then I need to make a post about Mavic Mini propellers...

Firstly - much thanks for everyone's replies, much appreciated.

Secondly - not sure the path we will take regarding our drone videos and youtube, but we won't be posting drone videos to our farm channel unless we have a 107 certificate.

Thirdly - No one knows our farm and youtube channel more than I do. A few posts really don't give a whole picture of our farm and the non-relationship it has to our youtube channel. I am 100% sure (and would set down with anyone from the FAA to show/discuss) that in no way, shape or form does the channel promote our farm business. I would respectfully appreciate the benefit of the doubt on this.

I'm looking into 107 and will leave it there.

Thanks again for everyone's replies and take care!!!!

Well said.

Good luck and Safe Flights

 

[Texbow]

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.

Just curious. If you post drone footage made outside the US on your business website or YouTube channel and your not a licensed 107 pilot how is that viewed by the FAA? For example all your commercial drone work could take place outside the US even though you are an American company.

 

[Thomas B]

Just curious. If you post drone footage made outside the US on your business website or YouTube channel and your not a licensed 107 pilot how is that viewed by the FAA? For example all your commercial drone work could take place outside the US even though you are an American company.

The measure is: the original “intent of the flight”

 

[Meta4]

Just curious. If you post drone footage made outside the US on your business website or YouTube channel and your not a licensed 107 pilot how is that viewed by the FAA? For example all your commercial drone work could take place outside the US even though you are an American company.

The FAA has no authority outside the USA so any flying done outside the USA is of no concern to them.

 

[Texbow]

The measure is: the original “intent of the flight”

The sole purpose of the flight was commercial and for a client. I have an energy infrastructure consulting company that has provided drone footage services outside the USA. I have the footage posted on my website and a Youtube channel. In my case it's not an issue because I'm a licensed 107 pilot BUT my question is more towards how would the FAA determine that the footage is not in the USA unless it was obvious or stated. I really can not see someone from the FAA scanning Youtube or websites for commercial footage for violations. I suspect that it would only come to surface if someone reported it. The number of posted drone footage is overwhelming and could never be verified. It seems to me that a law, rule, policy is in place that from a practical standpoint cannot be enforced.

I'm very much in favor of FAA regulations towards the drone community. I support the licensed 107 certification process because it forces pilots to be educated in the safe use of airspace. If it was up to me I would require everyone who wants to fly a drone to have the 107 certification period. I do think it's confusing and pointless for the FAA to concern themselves if drone footage is commercial or not. Fixed wing pilots who fly for pleasure one day and fly a client to a golf outing the next day do not have two different license nor does the FAA care. Maybe I'm missing something but safe operations and commercial use seems disconnected.

 

[Texbow]

The FAA has no authority outside the USA so any flying done outside the USA is of no concern to them.

I understand that but my point is that it's possible to have commercial footage posted online in the USA (Youtube etc) by a business that does not have a 107 pilot. In my case I do have a 107 license but prior to having it I had provided commercial drone work for clients outside the USA in a country that did not require a license. Someone simply scanning online who saw the footage possible could determine that the pilot was not a 107 pilot. Not highly likely but seems like an elementary way of searching for commercial violations of 107.

 

[John A.]

What puzzles me in all of this is, IMHO, the 107 requirement for monetized YouTube videos, realtors using drone footage to sell homes, etc., falls under first amendment and freedom of the press. I’m really surprised someone with deep pockets or a media outlet hasn’t sued the pants off the FAA and had it thrown out.

In our case, we would take drone videos over our private property, of farming and equipment we own. It’s odd that one can post that footage to YouTube NOT monetized, but if they click the switch to monetize it the exact same footage, automatically they’re a 107 pilot and need to spend $160 every two years to do exactly what they were doing as a hobby for free. I don’t understand, doesn’t sound right to me. I think the FAA needs to clarify exactly what is “commercial” flying.

Thanks again for everyone’s comments!

Two points: There is no violation of your first amendment rights. The government is regulating airspace and commerce with these regulations, not free speech. Secondly, the FAA has clearly indicated what is 'commercial'. If you earn from it, directly or indirectly, in cash or in kind, it's commercial--> period.

Those are the regs, and my humble opinion is that it is not wise to buck Big Government..and the FAA is big government. They have endless resources to pursue any of us that scoff at the regulations, and while the FAA is generally pretty easy to get along with (they generally aren't just looking to mess with aviators for the sake of putting a 'conviction' on the scoreboard-- like certain other governmental bodies) they have definately got Big Sticks. So, for your own sake, and for the sake of the hobby....just comply. Feel free to write your congressman if you'd like while doing so.

 

[ChrisOutdoors]

This topic, yeeesssh!

My advice when it comes to questions like this, contact the FAA and ask them directly. Too many people on this forum misinterpret the law and are usually wrong. I see too many posts where someone writes "My buddy heard" or "This guy on this YouTube video said" or "Read this article on UAV.COM" and it's usually wrong or outdated info.

If someone talks to the FAA and gets credible info, post it.

 

[Meta4]

This topic, yeeesssh!

It's like medieval theologians arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a pin.

My advice when it comes to questions like this, contact the FAA and ask them directly. Too many people on this forum misinterpret the law and are usually wrong. ...
If someone talks to the FAA and gets credible info, post it.

Unfortunately FAA personnel can be just as bad when it comes to misinterpreting regulations, particularly on this topic.
There are numerous cases of local FAA staff contributing to the spread of misinformation.

 

[Meta4]

I understand that but my point is that it's possible to have commercial footage posted online in the USA (Youtube etc) by a business that does not have a 107 pilot. In my case I do have a 107 license but prior to having it I had provided commercial drone work for clients outside the USA in a country that did not require a license. Someone simply scanning online who saw the footage possible could determine that the pilot was not a 107 pilot. Not highly likely but seems like an elementary way of searching for commercial violations of 107.

The FAA don't scour the internet searching for aerial imagery and persecuting people for having drone photos or video on their website.
Despite all the anxiety that comes out whenever this topic resurfaces, hunting down flyers profiting from their drone without Part 107 seems to be very, very low on the list of what the FAA thinks is important.
It's hard to see the FAA being interested in the extremely unlikely event that someone who had it in for you, reported your to the website FAA as you do have Part 107 certification.
But if they did, it should be a simple matter demonstrate the foreign location from the video itself or flight data.
But I think your concern is way beyond the realms of possibility and it couldn't ever become an issue.

 

[Texbow]

The FAA don't scour the internet searching for aerial imagery and persecuting people for having drone photos or video on their website.
Despite all the anxiety that comes out whenever this topic resurfaces, hunting down flyers profiting from their drone without Part 107 seems to be very, very low on the list of what the FAA thinks is important.
It's hard to see the FAA being interested in the extremely unlikely event that someone who had it in for you, reported your to the website FAA as you do have Part 107 certification.
But if they did, it should be a simple matter demonstrate the foreign location from the video itself or flight data.
But I think your concern is way beyond the realms of possibility and it couldn't ever become an issue.

I agree with you. It seems a waste of FAA’s time to get mixed up in commercial compensation issues regarding drones.

 

[BigAl07]

Just curious. If you post drone footage made outside the US on your business website or YouTube channel and your not a licensed 107 pilot how is that viewed by the FAA? For example all your commercial drone work could take place outside the US even though you are an American company.

You've completely missed the whole point. In your proposed situation the actual flights that created the Drone Footage were outside of the US which means the FAA would have no say-so nor care about them. The FAA is ONLY worried about Regulations and Aviation Safety in the US of A. Other countries have their own version of the FAA and it would be up to them if they wanted to pursue it or not (I'd be not).

American companies use footage from all over the world in their ads etc but ONLY flights made within the US and Territories are of any concern to the FAA.

 

[BigAl07]

This topic, yeeesssh!

My advice when it comes to questions like this, contact the FAA and ask them directly. Too many people on this forum misinterpret the law and are usually wrong. I see too many posts where someone writes "My buddy heard" or "This guy on this YouTube video said" or "Read this article on UAV.COM" and it's usually wrong or outdated info.

If someone talks to the FAA and gets credible info, post it.

What exactly are you wanting clarification on? I can definitely provide it if you're specific about what you're not understanding.

 

[Texbow]

You've completely missed the whole point. In your proposed situation the actual flights that created the Drone Footage were outside of the US which means the FAA would have no say-so nor care about them. The FAA is ONLY worried about Regulations and Aviation Safety in the US of A. Other countries have their own version of the FAA and it would be up to them if they wanted to pursue it or not (I'd be not).

American companies use footage from all over the world in their ads etc but ONLY flights made within the US and Territories are of any concern to the FAA.

I'm sorry if I didn't phrase my points more clearly. I understand the boundaries of the FAA. I was referencing just how could the FAA know which footage was under their jurisdiction or not IF THEY NOTICED something that didn't look right in footage posted on Youtube or Facebook or wherever they seen it. It seems that many are concerned about posting commercial footage on these platforms when they do not have a 107 license. My point is I just do not see how they could police all the online posted videos unless someone turns them in. It also seems to be a waste of FAA time to investigate if footage was commercial legal or not. It most likely does not happen. The whole monetized or not, furtherance of a business or not seems outside the scope of the FAA to me. I'm trying to understand the rational for having the FAA involved in that issue. Monitoring flights that are taken in controlled airspace to ensure they were performed safely within regulations by a trained and licensed pilot seems a difficult enough job without having to get involved in the commercial aspects of the flight. I know, I know, it is what it is I'm just wondering why (sitting around the campfire type of discussion).

 

[BigAl07]

I'm sorry if I didn't phrase my points more clearly. I understand the boundaries of the FAA. I was referencing just how could the FAA know which footage was under their jurisdiction or not IF THEY NOTICED something that didn't look right in footage posted on Youtube or Facebook or wherever they seen it. It seems that many are concerned about posting commercial footage on these platforms when they do not have a 107 license. My point is I just do not see how they could police all the online posted videos unless someone turns them in. It also seems to be a waste of FAA time to investigate if footage was commercial legal or not. It most likely does not happen. The whole monetized or not, furtherance of a business or not seems outside the scope of the FAA to me. I'm trying to understand the rational for having the FAA involved in that issue. Monitoring flights that are taken in controlled airspace to ensure they were performed safely within regulations by a trained and licensed pilot seems a difficult enough job without having to get involved in the commercial aspects of the flight. I know, I know, it is what it is I'm just wondering why (sitting around the campfire type of discussion).

They aren't sitting on computers watching every YT video posted. They are more "reactionary" to be honest. If someone submits a complaint they then start researching it. If there is enough information (not just a single YT clip per-say) and they can build a case and identify the operator they might investigate. Just because it's monetized does not trigger anyone but the online quarterbacks any more. The FAA clarified that standing many moons ago.

Yes the FAA DOES investigate Commerciale Operations without Part 107. While I understand you think it's a waste of time that's not exactly how the FAA sees it. They have an entire group of people doing exactly that. I know our local FSDO went from no dedicated UAS peeps to 4 just this year. I assume most of the FAA offices have ramped up their UAS #'s significantly.

 

[OurAngryBadger]

Watch this video from 6 days ago, he wasn't fined...but they were on him, they seem to be scouting YouTube from their homes during the "Corona", it wasn't for monetizing even though he is, but they warned him on that too...they got him for BVLOS it seems. He went and got his 107 to keep them off his case:

How getting 107 fix this? Cannot still fly BVLOS with it, right??

 

[Texbow]

They aren't sitting on computers watching every YT video posted. They are more "reactionary" to be honest. If someone submits a complaint they then start researching it. If there is enough information (not just a single YT clip per-say) and they can build a case and identify the operator they might investigate. Just because it's monetized does not trigger anyone but the online quarterbacks any more. The FAA clarified that standing many moons ago.

Yes the FAA DOES investigate Commerciale Operations without Part 107. While I understand you think it's a waste of time that's not exactly how the FAA sees it. They have an entire group of people doing exactly that. I know our local FSDO went from no dedicated UAS peeps to 4 just this year. I assume most of the FAA offices have ramped up their UAS #'s significantly.

Thanks. I have to assume they have their reasons for regulating the commercial use. I would be more concerned about a 16 y.o. flying a mavic mini the day after Christmas at 1000 ft near a local airport.

 

[Meta4]

Thanks. I have to assume they have their reasons for regulating the commercial use.

It comes from the way the FAA have tried to understand how to deal with drones.
Originally their perspective was to say that drones could not be used at all for commercial purposes.
As drones became better and more people found practical uses for drones, they relented (slightly).
At first they tried to treat drones like real airplanes and to fly a real airplane commercially requires a higher qualification than a private pilot's licence.
So in their wisdom, the FAA would allow an exemption from the no commercial rule (333 exemption).
But to get the 333 exemption just to use your drone to shoot a couple of real estate photos required a real airplane flying licence !!!

The current Part 107 rules are much more liberal and workable but still have the hangover idea that commercial flight requires something more than just owning a drone.
At the low end of the commercial scale it makes no sense that you can take photos of your house with your Mavic, but can't do it for a real estate agent.
And it boils down to a ridiculous thought crime when the determining factor is what was your intention when you flew.
And one which the FAA doesn't seem to put much effort into pursuing.

Some countries have come to a more realistic and practical way of handling things and make no distinction between commercial and recreational flight with drones weighing less than 2 kg.
This seems a smarter way to go and perhaps the FAA will eventually get there ?

 

[Texbow]

It comes from the way the FAA have tried to understand how to deal with drones.
Originally their perspective was to say that drones could not be used at all for commercial purposes.
As drones became better and more people found practical uses for drones, they relented (slightly).
At first they tried to treat drones like real airplanes and to fly a real airplane commercially requires a higher qualification than a private pilot's licence.
So in their wisdom, the FAA would allow an exemption from the no commercial rule (333 exemption).
But to get the 333 exemption just to use your drone to shoot a couple of real estate photos required a real airplane flying licence !!!

The current Part 107 rules are much more liberal and workable but still have the hangover idea that commercial flight requires something more than just owning a drone.
At the low end of the commercial scale it makes no sense that you can take photos of your house with your Mavic, but can't do it for a real estate agent.
And it boils down to a ridiculous thought crime when the determining factor is what was your intention when you flew.
And one which the FAA doesn't seem to put much effort into pursuing.

Some countries have come to a more realistic and practical way of handling things and make no distinction between commercial and recreational flight with drones weighing less than 2 kg.
This seems a smarter way to go and perhaps the FAA will eventually get there ?

Very good explanation. I'm not anti FAA in fact I'm somewhat sympathetic to the challenge they have in this fast drone technology advancement. Airspace safety should be the sole focus IMHO. I also don't think the majority problems are with commercial guys. My view is that the largest concern will be quality low priced drones that have a low bar of entry into the "sport" from a dollars standpoint therefore having the investment not so great that it is not an incentive for following the rules and doing things that could be less than safe. I've seen it online already " I only have a few hundred bucks in this thing so lets see how high or how far it can fly" rules? who needs rules. It's just a toy.